oltmannd .... Where low level platforms are the norm, the trainmen can only open one door at a time because they have to manually raise the trap (which lowers the stairs). You can't leave the trap up and and close the door (nor would you want to - you don't want people going from car to car to fall down the steps). You also don't want to open all doors - you could have people falling out the unattended doors since there's nobody there to get the trap. This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 2. The traps and stairs could be automated so that the passengers could get their own door by push button. (Lots of details to work out on this one...) 3. Amtrak could extort high level platforms from the towns with high traffic levels. They don't need to be elaborate. What PC put in (and had last for 40 year) at Metropark would suffice. Wood piles/supports, wood and asphalt platforms, wood railing and steps. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open.
....
Where low level platforms are the norm, the trainmen can only open one door at a time because they have to manually raise the trap (which lowers the stairs). You can't leave the trap up and and close the door (nor would you want to - you don't want people going from car to car to fall down the steps). You also don't want to open all doors - you could have people falling out the unattended doors since there's nobody there to get the trap.
This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however.
1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more.
2. The traps and stairs could be automated so that the passengers could get their own door by push button. (Lots of details to work out on this one...)
3. Amtrak could extort high level platforms from the towns with high traffic levels. They don't need to be elaborate. What PC put in (and had last for 40 year) at Metropark would suffice. Wood piles/supports, wood and asphalt platforms, wood railing and steps.
4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open.
The door trap is the problem with this type of car in the Midwest. Stations like Normal and Springfield also would need platform gauntlet tracks if the was no space for separate platform tracks as well as signaling; but then what about the Eagle? What about Saint Louis? What about utilization at Chicago Union Station? I remember the Horizon car developed off the NJT commuter coach with a remote-controlled low level door; but the higher steps makes boarding more difficult and less desirable. The most compatible solutions seem to be Talgo's for the tilting except for some gallery cars for rush hour Hiawatha's.
New bi-levels off the California design would be compatible for long-distance trains and Midwest routes; but I'm wondering if that many doors are needed where additional seating might be provided..
oltmannd schlimm: oltmannd: This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open. Standardize to high-level platforms. In the short-term, #'s 1 & 4 would help. All future equipment should use the interlocked door mechanism that passengers can operate. 1 & 4 would require management effort. Think Amtrak's up to the challenge?
schlimm: oltmannd: This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open. Standardize to high-level platforms. In the short-term, #'s 1 & 4 would help. All future equipment should use the interlocked door mechanism that passengers can operate.
oltmannd: This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open.
Standardize to high-level platforms. In the short-term, #'s 1 & 4 would help. All future equipment should use the interlocked door mechanism that passengers can operate.
1 & 4 would require management effort. Think Amtrak's up to the challenge?
If i were betting, I'd guess not. But I hope they can. I don't see why pushing a little on the labor front is such a non-starter. After all, labor makes up the bulk of Amtrak's operating expenses. Out of curiosity, and at the risk of enraging some folks, how much does the typical engineer for Amtrak get paid annually? Conductor? Trainman? How about your "typical" engineer on any of the Big Six freight lines?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm ...But even if we accept that it is, why not check passengers and then let them on the platform to await the train's arrival and then board through all doors....
...But even if we accept that it is, why not check passengers and then let them on the platform to await the train's arrival and then board through all doors....
That's what I've been preaching.
I pretty much agree with you on the rest.
Dakguy201 I don't understand the rationale for checking ID's. Why should we care enough about identifing an individual to verify who he is? Are we merely copying airline procedures to make ourselves feel safe? Alternatively, is there a "do not train" list of individuals which Amtrak consults when selling a ticket? If this procedure is necessary for Amtrak, then why is it not necessary for various rapid transit/surburban rail operations? Incidentially, how many of you even know what my South Dakota drivers license should look like? If I photograph it, photoshop the result so the name is now Osama bin Smith and laminate a print out, can you detect a problem?
I don't understand the rationale for checking ID's. Why should we care enough about identifing an individual to verify who he is? Are we merely copying airline procedures to make ourselves feel safe? Alternatively, is there a "do not train" list of individuals which Amtrak consults when selling a ticket? If this procedure is necessary for Amtrak, then why is it not necessary for various rapid transit/surburban rail operations?
Incidentially, how many of you even know what my South Dakota drivers license should look like? If I photograph it, photoshop the result so the name is now Osama bin Smith and laminate a print out, can you detect a problem?
This may be a case of go along to get along regardless of how necessary.
schlimm oltmannd: For Amfleet and Horizon cars.... In stations where there are high level platforms at intermediate stops - Phila, Trenton, Wilmington, et.al. the trainmen will usually open all doors. You can do this from any vestibule on any car in the train. This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open. Standardize to high-level platforms. In the short-term, #'s 1 & 4 would help. All future equipment should use the interlocked door mechanism that passengers can operate.
oltmannd: For Amfleet and Horizon cars.... In stations where there are high level platforms at intermediate stops - Phila, Trenton, Wilmington, et.al. the trainmen will usually open all doors. You can do this from any vestibule on any car in the train. This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open.
For Amfleet and Horizon cars....
In stations where there are high level platforms at intermediate stops - Phila, Trenton, Wilmington, et.al. the trainmen will usually open all doors. You can do this from any vestibule on any car in the train.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd For Amfleet and Horizon cars.... In stations where there are high level platforms at intermediate stops - Phila, Trenton, Wilmington, et.al. the trainmen will usually open all doors. You can do this from any vestibule on any car in the train. This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open.
schlimm I find it hard to believe that the door check is necessary. But even if we accept that it is, why not check passengers and then let them on the platform to await the train's arrival and then board through all doors (automatic doors or doors that only require pushing a button to open)? Since there are far fewer boarding passengers on an Amtrak train than a suburban Metra train, I do not think it is unreasonable for the conductor and trainmen to be capable of checking tickets on board. The result would be shorter dwell times. Terminal boarding for long distance has been done by checking passengers at the gate way back in the 50's or earlier, I believe, so that is nothing to do with airlines or post 9-11 TSA security. The number of non-paying riders on Metra is potentially much higher than Amtrak, but they continue to check tickets en route, so that seems to be a bogus argument for continuing with antiquated, inefficient boarding procedures on Amtrak. The European model has continued even after rail bombing (Madrid). The ID checking is useless. Even more ludicrous is having you sign on your ticket. So you scribble something that isn't checked against anything. What is that supposed to accomplish?
I find it hard to believe that the door check is necessary. But even if we accept that it is, why not check passengers and then let them on the platform to await the train's arrival and then board through all doors (automatic doors or doors that only require pushing a button to open)? Since there are far fewer boarding passengers on an Amtrak train than a suburban Metra train, I do not think it is unreasonable for the conductor and trainmen to be capable of checking tickets on board. The result would be shorter dwell times.
Terminal boarding for long distance has been done by checking passengers at the gate way back in the 50's or earlier, I believe, so that is nothing to do with airlines or post 9-11 TSA security.
The number of non-paying riders on Metra is potentially much higher than Amtrak, but they continue to check tickets en route, so that seems to be a bogus argument for continuing with antiquated, inefficient boarding procedures on Amtrak.
The European model has continued even after rail bombing (Madrid).
The ID checking is useless. Even more ludicrous is having you sign on your ticket. So you scribble something that isn't checked against anything. What is that supposed to accomplish?
schlimm Is there a TSA regulation to check tickets in the station, etc.? Is it a TSA regulation to allow boarding at only one or two points controlled by train staff? I'd like to see that regulation.
Is there a TSA regulation to check tickets in the station, etc.? Is it a TSA regulation to allow boarding at only one or two points controlled by train staff? I'd like to see that regulation.
As little as I have heard or read, it seems that the Amtrak boarding process was offered in response to a request for proposal and accepted as a protocol to increase security. Part of this is to have a public presence in the forms of inspections and ticket check-ins for appearances sake.
schlimm If we actually need a model for intercity boarding/disembarking procedures, we only need to look at the German (or Italian or whatever other country you wish -- I'm more familiar with the Germans) system. It runs smoothly and basically costs nothing extra. Unless of course, you think we cannot adopt any procedures used outside the US. And airplane systems are not relevant.
If we actually need a model for intercity boarding/disembarking procedures, we only need to look at the German (or Italian or whatever other country you wish -- I'm more familiar with the Germans) system. It runs smoothly and basically costs nothing extra. Unless of course, you think we cannot adopt any procedures used outside the US. And airplane systems are not relevant.
Passenger service seems to be modeled after the airlines, from reservations to boarding, although I remember having to check in and get a boarding pass at a movable desk out in the concourse of the old Union Station for the Blackhawk and Western Star. So in this sense, the airline system is relevant.
I would agree that the European model speeds boarding; but who knows what changes may be in the works. On-board bombings have occurred in the past.
Metra practices developed from the situation that a fair number of stations didn't have an agent at any time. Agents would outnumber conductors. Those stations that did have an agent from early morning to early afternoon reduced the time-consuming work on board collecting fares, making change, and issuing a receipts.
I can tell you that intermediate fares often go uncollected on Metra and the North Western before that. During the West Towns strike (1958?) I caught the same train at Maywood that my dad rode from Downtown; and the half of the days the conductor even came through the car, he refused to collect the fare. Half the time when I take the UP North from Rogers Park, my fare isn't collected, and now my senior card isn't checked (and there is no indication that it is recorded when it is).
Security check-ins, ID validation, and boarding can be tailored to meet the volume of passengers.
Not yet.
That story by the way was from a collection of "engineering student" jokes on a bulletin board at the "U." I think what the joke along with Amtrak policies speak to is that there is a higher likelihood of collecting the fare, and also collecting the correct fare when there are multiple stops, when you screen boarding rather than only walk down the aisles and collect tickets.
Is cheating on the fare that big a problem? With transit systems you have some degree of turnstyle jumping, and the way Metra runs 11-car trains with what, with one conductor and one trainman, you are running a bit of an honor system where people are expected to be honest citizens and pay for the fare even if they are skipped by the the conductor (Don't know about modern-day Metra, but if I remember right from in the C&NW days there were the rare occasions when the conductor didn't get to checking your ticket). Some European light rail systems (Holland?) go so far as to skimp on checking tickets, but they do spot checks with transit police, and if you are without your ticket, you are charged a fine.
So I suppose that on intercity trains, the passenger boardings are fewer and the fares are greater and it is determined to be of greater importance who is boarding the train. Even bus companies are doing this. At the Langdon Street "bus terminal" in Madison, people queue up, show their I.D., and have their names checked off a boarding manifest to get on the bus to Chicago Union Station or to Milwaukee Mitchell Field. This boarding does not appear to be a quick process either, and extra workers seem to be involved -- I was observing one boarding where the bus driver plus an assistant who was also giving curb-checks and loading bags in the rear compartment of one of the new 80-seat double deck buses got involved. I wasn't sure if that assistant was the bus conductor or if that man was the station master who stayed behind and boarded other buses.
As to the single boarding point, when the 747 Jumbo Jet first came out, there were artists depictions of a supposed need to have multiple jetways connected to multiple doors on one of those things. The only thing all those doors seem to be for these days is to satisfy the law requiring multiple emergency exit slides. The most I have seen in practice is two jetways -- coach and first class -- but I am not sure I have seen even that as everything seems to go through one door. And yes, it is inconvenient as it takes forever to board and the main reason one prefers smaller planes these days.
So, is there a control-freak major in college where you can learn how to be a transportation planner? This notion of "what do you think this is, a subway train" and the herding of passengers into boarding lines had been a trend even pre 9-11. With airlines, I think there is a long-standing requirement to know who is on the plane if we have to notify next-of-kin, and even during 9-11, the authorities pretty much knew who was on those planes, where the originated, and even what seat they were in.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
HarveyK400 Paul, That's a funny story. Seriously, It's a new world with TSA; and I think Amtrak is doing its best to cooperate to appear as security-conscious as the airlines. As a result, ID's must be checked at some point. The next step, like the airlines, could be scanning. Suburban and metropolitan rail passengers go merrily along - for now - but people are thinking of ways to do it.
Paul,
That's a funny story.
Seriously, It's a new world with TSA; and I think Amtrak is doing its best to cooperate to appear as security-conscious as the airlines. As a result, ID's must be checked at some point. The next step, like the airlines, could be scanning. Suburban and metropolitan rail passengers go merrily along - for now - but people are thinking of ways to do it.
Funny joke, but i hope that isn't the rationale being used for checking tickets prior to going onto the platform.
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!"
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)
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)
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.