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 t
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.
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 US
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
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?
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.
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.&nb
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 simpl
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.
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.
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 figur
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
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
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.
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.