A recent interview with Governor-Elect Scott Walker regarding "pulling the plug" on the Madison-Milwaukee train is here:
http://www.wisn.com/video/25790709/detail.html
What I found interesting is that the door was left open, even if just a tiny crack, for doing the Chicago-Milwaukee line enhancements and for increasing frequency on the Milwaukee-St Paul run beyond the once-daily Empire Builder.
So you heard it here first, and this is the political compromise. Do the track improvements (extra crossovers are a big item) on the CP line Chicago-Milwaukee, increasing capacity and paving the way for eventual 110 MPH operations. Add two more daily trains Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison to supplement the Empire Builder, running them on the current route through Columbus, WI, 40 minutes drive north of Madison. Make some provision for shuttle bus service to meet the 3-daily trains at Columbus, make plans for a rail commuter corridor connecting Madison, Columbus.
Here is the win-win-win for three of the stakeholders. It is a win for Governor-Elect Scott Walker to "not waste money building a train line to Madison" -- even if this everything-but-Madison is mean spirited, and sometimes politics is about rewarding friends and punishing people who oppose you (i.e. liberal college-town weenies).
It is a win for the local advocacy community that is basing its campaign in support of the Madison train as "connecting to a 1000 destinations (on the Amtrak network)" and downplaying this as a "Madison-Milwaukee commuter train." What the local advocacy people want anyway is a park-and-ride access to the Amtrak network (would be in Columbus, WI), and the advocacy community was fighting the Downtown Madison train station tooth-and-nail. It is a win for USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood and the Obama Administration, who would just as soon see Wisconsin accept money for trains rather than to have to reopen the competition to other states, and give the Republican Congress a crack at shifting the money to highways, and a compromise may provide some impetus to Governor-Elect Kasich to do the same thing in Ohio (the 2-C plan?).
Besides, to dog-leg the Milwaukee-St Paul route through Madison is circuitous, leaving aside consideration of the operational headache of backing trains in and out of the Madison Downtown. According to the FAA, Milwaukee Mitchel Field has 5 times the passenger boardings as Dane County Regional Airport, and we are probably ascribing too much importance to Madison anyway. The Everything-but-Madison Plan -- punishes the University weenies, keeps jobs in the State, a win for everyone.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Much as I'd love to have a second CHI-MSP train sooner than later, there are lots of problems with that scenario.
The ARRA grant for the MSN service, the MKE trainshed, as well as the earlier Tier 1 grants for the Truesdell crossovers and MKA platform improvements were based on a Chicago-Madison corridor. If the Madison corridor doesn't exist, then the money, including the stuff already spent on the CHI-MKE line, goes back to the Feds. The Feds can then evaluate alternative Wisconsin scenarios on their merits, along with grants applied for by a host of other states.
[Reps Sensenbrenner, Petri and Ryan today introduced a bill to allow returned HSR money to go back to the Treasury for deficit reduction. As this has no chance of even getting through committee in the lame duck session, this is a useless political stunt unlikely to succeed even in the 2011 session.]
Alternative Wisconsin scenarios presented have a strike against them--they're at the present little more than concepts with no market studies or environmental assessments. The Madison corridor's being already studied, given a FONSI, and preliminary engineering done, basically shovel-ready, was a factor in it getting full funding.
A second CHI-MSP train will still require an operating subsidy, most likely a cooperative agreement with Wisconsin and Minnesota. That, of course, is presently a no-go with Walker.
There's another term for University weenies. It's paying customers.
(Full disclosure--I'm not associated with UW.)
Politics is the art of the possible.
Secretary LaHood appears eager to get Wisconsin and Ohio to accept the ARRA money. Why not just let the money revert to New York or Florida, to the runners-up in the grant competition? Because reallocation of the money in Congress is no useless political stunt, it is a real possibility -- if it were otherwise, why is the USDOT Secretary so ready to talk? Eagerness is an important negotiating tell.
Governor-Elect Walker has come on like "Gangbusters" in opposition to the Madison train. But he has disclosed a negotiating fall-back position in his interview with Mike Gousha on Milwaukee TV -- that of supporting the Milwaukee-Chicago and Milwaukee-Twin Cities train service over the existing alignment. He may need that fallback position if there is enough fuss about turning back the ARRA money.
The local advocacy group has shown itself to be completely without political influence -- if one could not get Mayor Dave to budge one inch on the Madison Downtown train station, how is one supposed to influence Governor-Elect Walker? That is, the local advocacy group is in a particularly weak negotiating position in its inability to rally any significant kind of political pressure to do much of anything.
If the people in Madison were indeed paying customers, this discussion would be moot because some business would serve them. The people in Madison are partly paying customers, partly voters, and as a group, I fail to see how Madison holds much sway over Scott Walker. It is kind of like a reverse-Alinsky: frame the target, personalize the target, anticipate the target opening up a can of pay-back on you.
As shovel-ready and all of the studies, studies, schumdies, the whole thing was studied for a Dane County Regional Airport Station train station and then they (Gov, WisDOT Sec, Mayor) sprung the Madison Downtown on us. Tell me that was in the original proposal to USDOT. Tell me someone knows as of right now how to even get the train to 1E Wilson street given the Oscar Mayer factory passage of the tracks and ahost of other problems.
Paul Milenkovic Politics is the art of the possible. Secretary LaHood appears eager to get Wisconsin and Ohio to accept the ARRA money. Why not just let the money revert to New York or Florida, to the runners-up in the grant competition? Because reallocation of the money in Congress is no useless political stunt, it is a real possibility -- if it were otherwise, why is the USDOT Secretary so ready to talk? Eagerness is an important negotiating tell. Governor-Elect Walker has come on like "Gangbusters" in opposition to the Madison train. But he has disclosed a negotiating fall-back position in his interview with Mike Gousha on Milwaukee TV -- that of supporting the Milwaukee-Chicago and Milwaukee-Twin Cities train service over the existing alignment. He may need that fallback position if there is enough fuss about turning back the ARRA money. The local advocacy group has shown itself to be completely without political influence -- if one could not get Mayor Dave to budge one inch on the Madison Downtown train station, how is one supposed to influence Governor-Elect Walker? That is, the local advocacy group is in a particularly weak negotiating position in its inability to rally any significant kind of political pressure to do much of anything. If the people in Madison were indeed paying customers, this discussion would be moot because some business would serve them. The people in Madison are partly paying customers, partly voters, and as a group, I fail to see how Madison holds much sway over Scott Walker. It is kind of like a reverse-Alinsky: frame the target, personalize the target, anticipate the target opening up a can of pay-back on you. As shovel-ready and all of the studies, studies, schumdies, the whole thing was studied for a Dane County Regional Airport Station train station and then they (Gov, WisDOT Sec, Mayor) sprung the Madison Downtown on us. Tell me that was in the original proposal to USDOT. Tell me someone knows as of right now how to even get the train to 1E Wilson street given the Oscar Mayer factory passage of the tracks and ahost of other problems.
I missed the article; but this story has some interesting points.
On the positive side, the Talgos would be better suited to Chicago - Twin Cities. A lot of curve speed limits for conventional passenger trains could be raised and allow more 79 mph running with Talgos.
While time-keeping on the 'Builder (#7 & #8) has been pretty good, a train originating in the Twin Cities would be immune to the delays and disruptions inherent in a trans-continental run from the Northwest.
Another train is needed to supplement the capacity of the Builder in order to absorb intermediate travel without jeopardizing longer distance travel.
An earlier train from Chicago and a later one from the Twin Cities would balance the service and offer some flexibility in travel planning.
Nothing would be worse than spending hundreds of millions for a third track so #330 & #339 wouldn't be stuck between Metra rush hour trains. These trains already carry around 400 passengers; so a faster service might attract more riders than the Talgos can handle.
I still say frequent combined Amtrak-Metra trains in the rush hour can get to Milwaukee just as fast and provide more strategic access. Stops near Illinois suburban jobs for Wisconsin commuters would double for picking up Metra commuters going Downtown. This adds seating capacity for Metra instead of just taking a slot for Amtrak (inter-state commuting); and more travel can be accommodated with little line capacity improvement.
Trains would run roughly a half hour apart equipped with gallery cars outfitted for Amtrak with 90 seats and for Metra with 140 seats.
The Glenview stop would be changed to Lake-Cook Road, another stop would be made at Lake Forest in the rush hours, and a new station could be built in Gurnee.
Unfortunately, the disparaging criticism that Madison - Milwaukee was just a commuter line did not recognize that that is precisely what is needed and where the traffic is. And that is only part of the story considering that Racine and Kenosha also can be linked to allow intra-state travel for 40% of Wisconsin's population by counties with proposed stations. As a practical matter, only 21% of the population is afforded access primarily to Illinois.
If anything, the rail advocacy community may have done a disservice by insisting on high speeds and limited stops rather than accessibility and convenience that is at the heart of the Madison debate. The somewhat higher overall speed possible with limited stops is negated when trains only run every 3-4 hours.
I fully concur with Madison officials that the better station location was at Monona Landing, especially since an extension to the Twin Cities would not be soon in the best of cases. Additional stops should be added throughout the campus area to the west and to serve considerable travel to hospitals as well. A future station on the east side of Madison could serve both Madison and continuing trains.
HarveyK400 I still say frequent combined Amtrak-Metra trains in the rush hour can get to Milwaukee just as fast and provide more strategic access. Stops near Illinois suburban jobs for Wisconsin commuters would double for picking up Metra commuters going Downtown. This adds seating capacity for Metra instead of just taking a slot for Amtrak (inter-state commuting); and more travel can be accommodated with little line capacity improvement.
This is exactly what happens in Southern California, The Pacific Surfliner Slots in between Metrolink trains and Coaster trains. In LA area, it's a combined ticket. Amtrak acts as an express with fewer stops. But metrolink ticked passengers can board.
YoHo1975 This is exactly what happens in Southern California, The Pacific Surfliner Slots in between Metrolink trains and Coaster trains. In LA area, it's a combined ticket. Amtrak acts as an express with fewer stops. But metrolink ticked passengers can board.
I don't think it's the same - aren't those separate trains (and comparatively short)? In this case, combined trains of up to ten cars with two separate classes of accommodation and amenities run as a rush hour express fleeted at minimal headways.
Tickets may be transferable; but do the Coaster and Metrolink trains have similar accommodations as the Surfliners?
I got an Excel spreadsheet going with calculations for acceleration for current and possible future Midwest Corridor trains.
79 Mph 110 Mph 150 Mph
Miles Minutes Miles Minutes Miles Minutes
P42, 14-unit Talgo, NPCU 2.14 2.52 7.09 5.60 ---- ----
GT-4, 14-unit Talgo, GT-4 0.83 1.02 2.42 2.02 7.60 4.37
P42, 7-car Horizon, NPCU 3.05 3.71 10.35 8.26 ---- ----
P42, 5-METX, 5-ATK, NPU 5.23 6.14 ---- ---- ---- ----
MP30-4, 5-METX, 5-ATK, MP30-4 3.22 3.73 ---- ---- ---- ----
Most weight, length, area, and perimeter are only approximate. Passengers were assumed to be 185 pounds on average.
The P42, Talgo, and NPCU would seem to be the likely configuration for the Wisconsin Hiawathas. This would perform well up to 110 mph, notwithstanding that I didn't account for the reduced rolling and journal resistance of the single-axle Talgo.
The GT-4 is an assumed light weight 180,000 pound, 4,000 horse-power gas-turbine, mildly streamlined locomotive at each end of a 14-unit Talgo that would be capable of practical 150 mph service between stations and occasional curve restrictions. The 416-ton train could have 360 coach and 23 business class seats and a food service cafe unit. A 16-unit train would take another mile to attain 150 mph from a standing start.
The P42 with 6 Horizon coaches and a cafe-business class car is the current consist for some Saint Louis and Carbondale trains. The consist could achieve 110 mph between the less frequent stops and curves across Illinois; but not with the Hiawatha's.
Hiawatha's run without food service or business class. Given the turnover and turn-arounds, this could be missing multiple customers in the time taken for the longer routes. Maybe station concessionaires provide the beverages, snack, and sundries for the short trip.
The METX and ATK cars would be gallery cars with the same Nippon-Sharyo shells and mechanicals; but outfitted differentially. Most notably, I would propose softer high-backed seats for the Amtrak service as opposed to the standard Metra walk-over seat. The 5x5 configuration example would provide 450 seats for Wisconsin and 700 seats for Metra territory.
I think performance of the P42 with galleries would be adequate for the rush hour commuter schedules with a 79 mph limit. The occasional 1-degree curves along the Chicago - Milwaukee route would limit non-tilting trains to 81 mph with 1-1/2" cant for 50 mph general freight and coal service. CP might allow 65 mph for inter-modal and other priority trains with 1-1/2" cant deficiency; but that's conjecture on my part.
The MP30-4 would be an MPI locomotive with the Tier 4 compliant EMD 710-12 EVO engine at both ends of a METX-AMT N-S gallery consist. This should satisfy safety qualms of engineers and do useful work. This raises the level of performance with two more miles of sustained 79 mph running.
There is absolutely nothing new under the sun: The suggestion regarding gallery coaches sounds more than a little bit like the re-equipped "Flambeau 400" and "Peninsula 400" of 1958.
That gallery cars with nicer seats is nothing more than the C&NW "400" trains, well, so? I mean if you get a intercity train ride with nice seats, does it have to be some gee-whiz tech?
I am confused about the 5-METX, 5-ATK consists -- this means 10 passenger cars, and why the mix of two kinds? If this means 5-METX or 5-ATK bilevels as the METX and ATK are interchangable, why do 5 bilevels take so much longer to accelerate than 7 Horizon cars -- I would think the weight is about the same.
How are you treating aerodynamic drag in the different consists, especially the P42-Talgo-NPCU and P42-Horizon-NPCU consists? Do you have any fuel economy estimates from your simulations? If so, are you including HEP requirements?
Why are bilevels limited to 79 MPH but non-tilting Horizons are not? I thought the trucks on those things are rated to 110 MPH.
Are people serious about running P42's or MP-30's with "nose-hung" traction motors at 110 MPH? The British seem to think this tears up the tracks.
Basically the same. The "California" and Metra cars are not compatible; and neither Amfleet or Horizon stock have the capacity.
C&NW added commuter cars to the Bi-level 400's at peak times around holidays. I have a photo of a push-pull laying over at the lakefront C&NW Milwaukee station; but never asked why.
Paul Milenkovic That gallery cars with nicer seats is nothing more than the C&NW "400" trains, well, so? I mean if you get a intercity train ride with nice seats, does it have to be some gee-whiz tech? I am confused about the 5-METX, 5-ATK consists -- this means 10 passenger cars, and why the mix of two kinds? If this means 5-METX or 5-ATK bilevels as the METX and ATK are interchangable, why do 5 bilevels take so much longer to accelerate than 7 Horizon cars -- I would think the weight is about the same. How are you treating aerodynamic drag in the different consists, especially the P42-Talgo-NPCU and P42-Horizon-NPCU consists? Do you have any fuel economy estimates from your simulations? If so, are you including HEP requirements? Why are bilevels limited to 79 MPH but non-tilting Horizons are not? I thought the trucks on those things are rated to 110 MPH. Are people serious about running P42's or MP-30's with "nose-hung" traction motors at 110 MPH? The British seem to think this tears up the tracks.
I can straighten out some of your questions.
First, the mix of cars is because there is a desire and need to stop in the job-rich northern suburbs from Wisconsin; and the concurrent need for Metra capacity and service windows in the rush hour. Combined, or mixed, equipment allows simultaneous service at a couple major stops and a new one in Gurnee.
Outfitting the cars with a plushier interior matches the expectation for Amtrak service. I'm not sure whether there is an inherent premium for the Amtrak service by cost per mile of the respective monthly passes, 10-ride tickets, and 1-way fares compared to Metra. (I do think that the Amtrak monthly pass is too big a bargain with respect to peak pricing; and the 1-way fare is prohibitively expensive.)
The small difference between 7 Horizon and 10 gallery is interesting. There are weight and dimensional differences and apparently offsetting horsepower. The gallery train weighs 1,058 tons assuming a 66 ton car; and the Horizon train weighs just 714 tons assuming 57 ton cars - I think it's close. I failed to include the coaches in the train length, but that didn't change the outcome appreciably when the correction was made. The recalculated miles are 3.27 and the minutes are 3.91 at 79 mph; and rise to an impractical 15.30 and 11.26 respectively at 110 mph with the corrected drag.
I thought the P42 and MPI locomotives had separate hotel diesels? Seems to me they were rated at either 1,000 kW or 1,000 Hp - quite a difference. Anyway, I did not adjust the traction power for hotel load; but can do so if that is the case. Needless to say, this would put a serious hurt on acceleration.
It seemed like 110 mph would be doable with the present configuration with Horizon (and Amfleet) across the wide-open spaces in Illinois. Obviously, a second P42 or new locomotives would be necessary with single-level cars. As can be seen, the Talgo does quite well as an alternative.
As for the gallery cars, this was strictly for the Hiawatha service in the Chicago-Milwaukee conurbation with the combination of frequent stops, curvature that isn't limiting below 79 mph, and need for capacity limited by platform length at Chicago Union Station.
I did not do a fuel estimate. In the past (a looong time ago) I used the times in acceleration, cruising, and idling time, but this was by hand for a given route and quite tedious. I also threw in a rough estimate of 0.7x timetable minutes + idling and came pretty close to reported fuel consumption for Chicago commuter lines to estimate passenger-miles per gallon that was low-balled by an anti-rail writer.
There are no "people" serious about P42's or MP30's as such running at 110 mph. I thought the P42 was geared for 110 mph; and that this would be okay (certainly not the best) with nose-hung motors. Certainly a high-speed, low-unsprung mass truck would be desirable for a future MP30 or MP40-type passenger locomotive along with body-mounted motors or hydraulic transmission.
While on the subject of locomotives, it seems clear that a diesel would be too heavy for 150 mph. The two questions are if a recuperating gas turbine locomotive would have competitive fuel economy and would meet Tier 4 emission standards for transitioning through incremental improvement of routes to full high speed service.
HarveyK400 I did not do a fuel estimate. In the past (a looong time ago) I used the times in acceleration, cruising, and idling time, but this was by hand for a given route and quite tedious. I also threw in a rough estimate of 0.7x timetable minutes + idling and came pretty close to reported fuel consumption for Chicago commuter lines to estimate passenger-miles per gallon that was low-balled by an anti-rail writer.
Let me see if I have this straight. Some time ago, you developed a model that accurately predicted the fuel consumption of Chicago commuter trains, an anti-rail writer cited your work in an article offering an opinion regarding the merits or lack thereof of trains, so you have dropped further inquiry or development of models on passenger train fuel economy?
Some fields of inquiry work on the principle of scientific integrity. For example, there is a drug that cures cancer outright in many patients whose cause may have been hopeless, but there are also a large number of patients who received this drug and it hasn't done a thing for them. I am posing this as a hypothetical, but it seems that the newer generation of anti-cancer drugs, the ones that target some things that cancer do rather than the older-style chemo-therapy drugs that are largely poisons to growing cells, many of these new drugs seem to be working that way. So a person stops publishing on the outcome of use of the drug because, let's say, there is some critic of Medicare spending, who is citing these results as an argument for Medicare to not pay for this treatment?
Passenger trains are a means for providing transportation to people rather than an end in themselves, and there are reasoning, informed people who have looked at passenger trains and argue against their public funding. Or maybe passenger trains are enough of an end to themselves that we simply withhold information that does not advance the cause but gets cited by anti-train people?
While an addition train to Minneapolis would be nice Mr. Walker is not willing to fund any new service. Instead take the $800 million, do the track and station improvements for the MKE-CHI line and spend the rest for new Talgo train sets. Walker gets credit for the job creation from spending all that money in Wisconsin. Michigan, Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin get new Talgo train sets. The midwest rail initiative gets a kick start and the new Talgo's free up passenger cars for other areas on the Amtrak system. Depending on how much is spent on the MKE-CHI upgrades perhaps 20 new train sets could be built. This really would be a new plan for Wisconsin trains.
Paul Milenkovic Let me see if I have this straight. Some time ago, you developed a model that accurately predicted the fuel consumption of Chicago commuter trains, an anti-rail writer cited your work in an article offering an opinion regarding the merits or lack thereof of trains, so you have dropped further inquiry or development of models on passenger train fuel economy?
That got backward and not what I intended. The writer (Cato?) railed first against trains and pointed to high energy costs. That didn't ring true, so I did some quick calculations that confirmed something was wrong. Rapid transit was less "efficient" than expected because the energy costs of stations was included, a level of amenity not usually available for buses and arguably not part of vehicle efficiency. For whatever reason, commuter rail was rated very low - I don't recall offhand; but much less than 100 mpg/psgr, again an average and probably reflecting the preponderance of electrified Northeast suburban systems including stations.
I responded trying to develop a model off the acceleration tables. I did have fuel consumption rates for E8's and F7's used around Chicago at the time. Turns out the gallonage, train-miles, and passenger-miles was all I really needed and the result was >200 p-mpg.
Here is what is going on with commuter trains.
A commuter train commonly collects people from suburban stations along the line and takes (most of them) to, say, Ogilvie Center. There are exceptions -- I used to take a commuter train to go to college classes on a daily basis and would get off at Davis, Street, Evanston -- but the interesting thing is that the whole "system" is set up for the downtown destination: the people going all the way downtown could get monthly passes whereas the poor college student paid by the trip.
When the train starts out, wherever, Harvard, Illinois on Northwest line, wherever short of Racine on North line, hardly anyone gets on. Then as the train makes stops, more and more people get on and the train gets more and more full, until you get to Clyburn and every seat is taken and there may even be people standing. On that last stage, with no stops until Ogilvie Center as the suburban trains are just that, suburban service and CTA handles rides within city limits, you are probably getting 500 passenger miles per gallon.
But the train is not fully occupied the whole way in, and it is not because "people are not riding the train" -- the train is pretty much used to capacity in its intended mode of service. Someone can fill me in on Metra's mode of service, but you may run express trains in the "back" direction, either dead-headed or with few passengers in order to do at least one more inbound rush-hour run. And then you run off-peak service, with bob-tailed consists for sure, in part to utilize the equipment, in part to serve off-rush hour needs. So when all of that is factored in, the numbers come out to about 50-60 passenger miles per gallon, pretty good for commuting where a single-rider car may get only 20 MPG's, but not the multiples of MPG's that people think. This translates to numbers on the order of 2000-2500 BTUs/PM commonly reported.
As to the gallonage, train-miles, and passenger miles, the figures are not anywhere near 200 p-mpg (would be about 700 BTU/passenger mile -- I haven't seen any numbers close to that for commuter rail, anywhere). These figures, by the way, are not something that Cato or Heritage makes up. There is a Federal requirement that transit agencies (receiving Federal dollars in one form or another) report the gallons and passenger miles of their operations. That is where we learn that bus transit, averaging about 3-4 MPG per bus making frequent stops and averaging about 7-10 passenger per bus, requires multiples more BTU's/passenger-mile than intercity motor coach, averaging about 6-7 MPG and about 20 passengers per bus. One way that intercity motor coach operators get such high load factors is that they dispatch more buses during peak demand -- buses are apparently cheap enough that they can keep extra buses on hand. The other way is that a lot of intercity motor coach operations are charters -- my friend's dad goes to Florida each year with a bunch of retired people on a bus charter.
We really have no idea what kind of fuel economy occurs with the Hiawatha or Surfliner. The closest I have come is that someone at WisDOT told me over the phone that the Vision Report's energy-savings-over-driving came from the assumption that a single-locomotive with a 400-seat intercity train (about 6 single-level cars for the seating density people have in mind for intercity trains) uses about 1.7 gallons of #2 Diesel per mile, which for a 40 percent average load factor works out to about 1500 BTU/mile, compared to Amtrak averages of the mid to high 2000's lately, and the Vision Report assumes this to be half the energy required for driving with assumptions about highway gas mileage and occupancy of cars on highway trips. I have no idea on the consists they are basing this on, because as Don Oltmann has pointed out, Amtrak has run long Amfleet consists behind single F40's on the Boston-NY run whereas for the longest time a Hiawatha consist was only four coaches plus the weight and aero drag of a height-mismatched P42 and cab car at each end. Is the Hiawatha up to 6 cars now -- this should improve their fuel economy numbers somewhat.
The point of this is that we should not rely on optimistic assumption on fuel economy and we need to take what critics such as Cato say seriously, and if we want to correct Cato and others on this score, we should sharpen our pencils. What ever happened to this thing about LED readouts of fuel on the side of Amtrak locomotives and some people who ride the trains (these days I don't get out much) reporting some readings?
Since this thread has been about the Wisconsin plan for service between Milwaukee and Madison, a look at the demographics reveals why it was a poor choice for a corridor.
Milwaukee: city population = 605K; metro area (not inc. Racine metro)= 1.7 million
Madison: city population = 235K; 3 county metro area = 601K; Dane county = 491K
One wonders how much of a rail market that route would actually be, given a distance of 79 miles on I 94 with a travel time of 94 minutes (according to Google).
Contrast that with improving the Chicago - Milwaukee corridor, as a better investment, with a mix of conventional, commuter and higher speed train sets.
Chicago: city population = 2.8 million (the metro pop. is huge, but too large an area to figure the whole as a ridership base
Lake County, IL - Kenosha County, WI Metro Division = 877K
Racine County metro =200K
Milwaukee city = 605K; metro = 1.7 mil.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
If I understand it correctly, a proposal for a train to Minneapolis is a non-starter because the Gov-elect also is unwilling to fund the service. Actually, that would take three states to implement; and Minnesota is questionable as well.
$800 million is a lot to pour into CHI-MIL, even after taking out money for five sets of Talgos for hourly service and a spare. All the possible improvements for the Hiawatha line probably will leave money on the table to be taken back, assuming the application and approval can be amended.
Some money could go into easing a number of slight curves to 0-deg, 20-min for future segregated 220 mph high speed service; but a larger chunk could be expended now to fully grade-separate the CP line between the Milwaukee Airport Station and Kenosha. FRA rules would allow 150 mph, quite achievable with non-electrified Talgos and improvements to satisfy CP needs.
Gas-turbine powered powered Talgos could sprint to 150 mph between MAS & SVT and even between SVT & Kenosha. Why do it? It's a valuable image; even at the expense of energy and emission costs. The Acela is an example of this on the NEC. Between Kenosha, WI and Gurnee, IL, a succession of curves would limit trains to 110 mph. Both grade separation and segregation (for higher cant undesirable for freight service) would allow improvement to only 125 mph with Talgos which seems impractical.
Currently, Illinois only has money for 110 mph upgrades. While upgrades can be made in Wisconsin, the best case is 110 mph. In addition, I strongly believe that improved frequency and more access are needed along the corridor. This conflicts in the rush hours with growing demand for Metra service. Much of the Region's population growth will occur in the MD North commutershed. My solution is to combine peak Metra and Amtrak trains to selected express stops using higher-capacity gallery cars with around 1,150 seats where there is no track capacity to run separate trains, especially a Hiawatha with only one stop in Metra territory. 420-seat Talgos would run at other times; and the displaced rush hour Talgo could serve as a reverse-commute to Milwaukee.
To allow 220 mph in the future, the slight curves south of Gurnee could be eased; but for the time being, realignment for segregating high speed trains would be costly on account of the dislocation at Metra stations. Furthermore, capacity needs for both Metra and CP would seem to demand at least a third track for part of the distance; and that too will incur dislocation costs. The third track would be the least costly alternative with shared track. With full grade separation, Talgos could run at up to 150 mph. A plan should be developed for the phased implementation for capacity and then for high speed.
The problem comes down to capacity both approaching and at Union Station. A fourth track is needed from A-4 to Union Station, because what goes out depends on how much can go in. Currently, Union Station has more capacity to load and go than the approach.
There is no way 20 Talgos would be needed for Chicago-Milwaukee. Certainly more would be needed for Michigan and helpful for Missouri services; and they would be an improvement for boarding if limited in effectiveness for the fewer curves on Illinois corridors. Only 9 Talgos would be needed for CHI-MIL-MAD.
Yes, funding grade separation would be a great way for Gov. Walker to provide political payoff to the road builders.
If twenty Talgo train sets could be built with the “left over” money how many passenger train routes would that cover?
Prioritytimberland Yes, funding grade separation would be a great way for Gov. Walker to provide political payoff to the road builders. If twenty Talgo train sets could be built with the “left over” money how many passenger train routes would that cover?
Those 20 trains would blanket every potential route through Wisconsin, including the Twin Cities by both La Crosse and Eau Claire. The problem is Governor-elect Walker won't fund operation beyond the current CHI-MIL service. As I indicated, there are potential Midwest markets for the Talgo's; but those decisions are out of the hands of Wisconsin.
schlimm Since this thread has been about the Wisconsin plan for service between Milwaukee and Madison, a look at the demographics reveals why it was a poor choice for a corridor.
To the contrary, I think CHI-MIL-MAD has an excellent prospect for success if done right.
With stops in Jefferson, Waukesha, and Kenosha County, 40% of Wisconsin's population by county, a reasonable approximation of a corridor's catchment, would be able to use the trains for intra-state travel as well as to Illinois. Travel attraction is inversely proportional to distance, so the size of the Twin Cities shrinks in importance as far away as it is.
Secondly, I still think it's equally important in Madison to have stops at Monona Landing near the capitol and at Camp Randall in the UW campus area as well as a park-n-ride station on the east side near suburban office parks around I-90/94. This despite the difficulty of getting downtown and the possible dislocation that may be necessary due to a lack of foresight.
HarveyK400 Secondly, I still think it's equally important in Madison to have stops at Monona Landing near the capitol and at Camp Randall in the UW campus area as well as a park-n-ride station on the east side near suburban office parks around I-90/94. .
Secondly, I still think it's equally important in Madison to have stops at Monona Landing near the capitol and at Camp Randall in the UW campus area as well as a park-n-ride station on the east side near suburban office parks around I-90/94. .
Is the proposal for a rapid transit system for Madison or a Madison/Milwaukee/Chicago service? Stops are the real time waster in intercity service, and minimizing them will achieve quicker running times much more than raising top speeds. The time problem with stops is aggrevated by expecting Amtrak personnel to verify identities, a meaningless piece of security theater.
It's an inter-city service.
I certainly agree boarding procedures gets to be a significant problem at any station for more than 10 passengers. I've railed (love this word) on this before.
HarveyK400 It's an inter-city service. I certainly agree boarding procedures gets to be a significant problem at any station for more than 10 passengers. I've railed (love this word) on this before. Part of the solution is for secure platforms; and that may entail closing cross streets or relocating the station. With frequent service, the station agent would check identification before the passengers enter the waiting lounge and platform area - generally wherever there is an agent now. Obviously, an appropriate security plan is needed when an incident is encountered. The other part is spread boarding and alighting by computer car (and seat) assignment keyed to boarding queue location. This means more full-length platforms.
As usual, you've touched on a key item in improving overall speed without increasing top speed or acceleration (although I think those need to come as well, eventually). A friend of mine lives in Champaign, IL and likes to come up to visit us in the Chicago suburbs, so he thought he'd take Amtrak, for a change. He noted some puzzling aspects of the trip that seem to waste a lot of time.
1. He took train # 390 the Saluki, which leaves Champaign at 10:14 am, arriving in Union Station at 1:00 pm, 129 miles, which is an average of 46.6 mph.
2. In Champaign, passengers were to leave the station and proceed to the platform until the 15-20 disembarking passengers had exited the platform. Only then could he and the other 30 boarding passengers go to the platform and enter the one open door (out of a five car train). This whole process took about 12 minutes, from the time the train arrived (half hour late from Carbondale) until it departed.
3. This process was repeated at another four stops (briefer stops with fewer passengers) taking 8-10 minutes at each - total en route = 32-40 minutes.
4. So a total of 44-52 minutes dwell time is spent in unloading/loading. Let's say 45 minutes.
5. By comparison, ICE and IC trains in Germany typically have a dwell time, even in larger stations with many more passengers, of 2 minutes. This is because passengers are already on the platform, boarding is possible in all cars, and the platform sign shows where each car will stop.
6. If the Amtrak train had a similar dwell time for the four stops after Champaign, 24-32 minutes could be saved, getting to Chicago at 12:28 - 12:36 pm and increasing the average speed to 54.5-57.8 mph.
schlimm HarveyK400: It's an inter-city service. I certainly agree boarding procedures gets to be a significant problem at any station for more than 10 passengers. I've railed (love this word) on this before. Part of the solution is for secure platforms; and that may entail closing cross streets or relocating the station. With frequent service, the station agent would check identification before the passengers enter the waiting lounge and platform area - generally wherever there is an agent now. Obviously, an appropriate security plan is needed when an incident is encountered. The other part is spread boarding and alighting by computer car (and seat) assignment keyed to boarding queue location. This means more full-length platforms. As usual, you've touched on a key item in improving overall speed without increasing top speed or acceleration (although I think those need to come as well, eventually). A friend of mine lives in Champaign, IL and likes to come up to visit us in the Chicago suburbs, so he thought he'd take Amtrak, for a change. He noted some puzzling aspects of the trip that seem to waste a lot of time. 1. He took train # 390 the Saluki, which leaves Champaign at 10:14 am, arriving in Union Station at 1:00 pm, 129 miles, which is an average of 46.6 mph. 2. In Champaign, passengers were to leave the station and proceed to the platform until the 15-20 disembarking passengers had exited the platform. Only then could he and the other 30 boarding passengers go to the platform and enter the one open door (out of a five car train). This whole process took about 12 minutes, from the time the train arrived (half hour late from Carbondale) until it departed. 3. This process was repeated at another four stops (briefer stops with fewer passengers) taking 8-10 minutes at each - total en route = 32-40 minutes. 4. So a total of 44-52 minutes dwell time is spent in unloading/loading. Let's say 45 minutes. 5. By comparison, ICE and IC trains in Germany typically have a dwell time, even in larger stations with many more passengers, of 2 minutes. This is because passengers are already on the platform, boarding is possible in all cars, and the platform sign shows where each car will stop. 6. If the Amtrak train had a similar dwell time for the four stops after Champaign, 24-32 minutes could be saved, getting to Chicago at 12:28 - 12:36 pm and increasing the average speed to 54.5-57.8 mph.
HarveyK400: It's an inter-city service. I certainly agree boarding procedures gets to be a significant problem at any station for more than 10 passengers. I've railed (love this word) on this before. Part of the solution is for secure platforms; and that may entail closing cross streets or relocating the station. With frequent service, the station agent would check identification before the passengers enter the waiting lounge and platform area - generally wherever there is an agent now. Obviously, an appropriate security plan is needed when an incident is encountered. The other part is spread boarding and alighting by computer car (and seat) assignment keyed to boarding queue location. This means more full-length platforms.
So, why does Amtrak management and the train crew think this is a reasonable way to do business? Who are they serving? Who's needs are coming first?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
schlimm As usual, you've touched on a key item in improving overall speed without increasing top speed or acceleration (although I think those need to come as well, eventually). A friend of mine lives in Champaign, IL and likes to come up to visit us in the Chicago suburbs, so he thought he'd take Amtrak, for a change. He noted some puzzling aspects of the trip that seem to waste a lot of time. 1. He took train # 390 the Saluki, which leaves Champaign at 10:14 am, arriving in Union Station at 1:00 pm, 129 miles, which is an average of 46.6 mph. 2. In Champaign, passengers were to leave the station and proceed to the platform until the 15-20 disembarking passengers had exited the platform. Only then could he and the other 30 boarding passengers go to the platform and enter the one open door (out of a five car train). This whole process took about 12 minutes, from the time the train arrived (half hour late from Carbondale) until it departed. 3. This process was repeated at another four stops (briefer stops with fewer passengers) taking 8-10 minutes at each - total en route = 32-40 minutes. 4. So a total of 44-52 minutes dwell time is spent in unloading/loading. Let's say 45 minutes. 5. By comparison, ICE and IC trains in Germany typically have a dwell time, even in larger stations with many more passengers, of 2 minutes. This is because passengers are already on the platform, boarding is possible in all cars, and the platform sign shows where each car will stop. 6. If the Amtrak train had a similar dwell time for the four stops after Champaign, 24-32 minutes could be saved, getting to Chicago at 12:28 - 12:36 pm and increasing the average speed to 54.5-57.8 mph.
This is similar to experiences I had coming back from Springfield Illinois three years ago. It was during the Legislature session and 80-120 passengers would board #304 at two doors, taking 6-10 minutes. This is what got me thinking about this problem.
Incidentally, those trains have been running 7 cars long this past October.
I had another way of looking at it. Every extra minute of dwell time negates 4.65 miles of 110 mph running. For just the 24 minutes lost you estimated, that negates 112 miles of 110 mph running for a 129 mile trip! In order to make up 24 minutes lost for slow boarding, speed has to be increased from 79 to 110 mph with no savings. If both expedited boarding and 110 mph running were implemented, the Saluki could arrive at 12:16 for a 63 mph average.
So, I guess my question is: Why does Amtrak board trains in this weird manner? Seats are reserved, so why not let folks know which doors to go to based on the coach they will be in and line up on the platform ahead of time?
schlimm So, I guess my question is: Why does Amtrak board trains in this weird manner? Seats are reserved, so why not let folks know which doors to go to based on the coach they will be in and line up on the platform ahead of time?
Why should they? It would be less convenient and more work for the Amtrak employees to do it any other way. Simplest for them is to open one trap and have everyone schlep through the train to find a seat. Of course this is a disservice for the paying customers. But, who cares about them? The fewer there are, the easier the employee's job. They get paid the same regardless of the passenger count, right? They don't get any bonus if Amtrak had a good year, do they?
(sarcasm off)
Rhetorical, isn't it?
Actually, Chicago-Milwaukee isn't reserved. I think the gate at Union Station is roped off and passengers can be ID'd before proceeding to the platform. I don't know how many get on at MAS; but a year ago ~50 got off #339 at Sturtevant the day the engineer overshot the platform by a 1/4 mile. (Took less than 1/2 mile to stop from 79 mph.) It still took about two minutes at the station; so the crew probably opened only a couple doors and traps on the 5-car train. I was on the other side of the train.
oltmannd (sarcasm on) Why should they? It would be less convenient and more work for the Amtrak employees to do it any other way. Simplest for them is to open one trap and have everyone schlep through the train to find a seat. Of course this is a disservice for the paying customers. But, who cares about them? The fewer there are, the easier the employee's job. They get paid the same regardless of the passenger count, right? They don't get any bonus if Amtrak had a good year, do they? (sarcasm off)
(sarcasm on)
I'll keep my sarcasm off, but not the cynic button. Forgetting about niceties of service, I am looking at a pretty cheap way to improve the average speed for any given train. Why do we persist in using such an antiquated system that relies on conductors to open each door? On Metra commuter trains, the conductor (and trainman on rush hour, long trains) can open the doors for many cars without actually being at the door. Taking it one step further, why do we need a train employee to opens the doors? On German trains (ICE, IC and regional/locals) passengers need merely press a lighted button to open the sliding door when it turns green (interlocked to train control so it cannot be opened while train is in motion). On older equipment, one needs to pull down a handle to open the door. And almost of their trains have platform level exits, which also speeds up the dwell time.
And why check tickets prior to boarding? Why can't they be checked in route? That would also save time.
A group of engineering grad students and a group of law students are going to their respective student organization conventions in the same city by train. The law students go up to the window and each buy a ticket whereas the engineering students buy only one. The law students ask, "How are you all going to get away with having one ticket" to which the engineering students reply, "Watch and learn."
The all board the train where the law students take their seats; the engineering students all crowd into one bathroom stall. The conductor comes down the rows, "Tickets, please!" and the law students surrender and get their tickets punched. The conductor comes up to the occupied bathroom, knocks on the door, calls out "Tickets, please!" One hand thrusts out of the door and the conductor collects and punches that one ticket.
On the way home, the law students this time purchase only one ticket; the engineers it seems haven't even bought a single ticket. "How are you going to get home?" "Watch and learn" was the reply.
As the conductor is about to collect fares, the law students all cram into one bathroom stall. There is a knock on the door and a demand, "Tickets, please!"
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.