They show 3 possible route variations.
Through Eau Claire to Twin Cities. Would that use the UPs Adams line that goes through Hudson Wisconsin?
Up along the Mississippi
Lacrosse to Rochester to Twin Cities. Would they actually use the hated DM&E line to Rochester from the river? From Rochester north would they possibly use the Chicago Great Western right of way? Rochester is already working on a naming contest for their train.
If higher speed passenger service is to be from from Chicago, Milwaukee, to Madison, where do you go from Madison?
The CP has a very low grade branch line from Columbus to Madison. If a service would be via existing lines that would be the route.
Here is a link to a map of the existing rail lines in the state. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/docs/railmap.pdf
I don’t think the planning for service beyond Madison is past the “Here’s an idea.” stage.
If it were up to me, I’d run the service beyond Portage up the CP to Camp Douglas and then UP into the Twin Cities. I think going through Eau Claire gets the service to a higher population and also may allow easier adjustments to allignment to facilitate higher speeds. Any changes to the CP line North of LaCrosse (the route of the Empire Builder) might be limited by the river.
As clearly indicate by many post on the subject, using existing rail lines means that any service at speeds over 110 MPH is out of the question and even that is iffy. Real HSR with service with up to 200MPH means building a brand new double track electrified railroad with curves limited to less than 1 degree. If you want to figure the route, just get a Wisconsin highway map and start drawing lines. Don’t forget to go over or under streets and highways. Also, at $40 to $50 million per mile, you might want to make some notes on how to pay for the cost of building the line.
I imagine that if some existing, lightly used ROWs were purchased in some of the locations (like Columbus to Madison), a dedicated (HSR only) single track line with appropriate sidings would be much cheaper than $40-50 mil.
That would depend on who currently owns the ROW, what it’s being used for (or planned for “someday”), maybe zoning laws, and whether or not the ground below the surface is “right” (a guess, but I’m guessing there’s requirements there) for HSR. To top all that off factor in NIMBYs, who is doing the asking, how they’re asking, and the local legal environment. I ain’t gonna hold my breath.
I doubt it will be done at all. If the Federal givernment wants to anger voters even further with their excessive spending what better way than to choose locations where there isn’t enough traffic to even break even on running the trains. Every other country that has true high speed rail has exclusive right of ways for high speed. Taking peoples land for the project is going to anger a lot of people and it can’t be done on existing trackage. You will be lucky to see high speed between Chicago and Milwaukee in the next 75 years in my opinion. Beyond that probably never.
I’d guess that most lightly used ROW’s won’t have the alignment needed for much over 79mph with some work on the approaches to curves and maybe 110mph if only minor line relocations are needed. I would think that would eat up the lion’s share of the money.
One not-so-minor detail, here: the CP line is between Portage and Madison, not Columbus. Also, it is pretty straight. Also, now that the former CNW line (ex-Dakota 400) has been severed between Reedsburg and Camp Douglas, the CP line is the only option if one desires to upgrade service while using existing right-of-way and track.
Yes. One major downside to this is that your “landlord” railroad is the Union Pacific, a company noted of late as being very hostile to any passenger service on its’ tracks.
This is the route that has existing service, and, I suspect, would be the least expensive to upgrade to FRA Class 6 track (110 mph passenger speed limit) service. It also offers on-line population centers that have provided and would continue to provide a customer base.
I could imagine that going to Rochester would involve some use of the DME track, but from Rochester north, the costs of reconstruction and reinstallation of track, along with upgrading the entire section, would make the project a non-starter. People will balk at the cost of building a line from the ground up. Hell, one only has to read the comments on Madison.com to learn of the opposition to spending that projects such as this will have to overcome. The local anti-rail forces are out in strength on this project. One would think that local conservatives would welcome the investment in the local economy, but, no!, Instead we in the Badger State get to hear and read all of the myths about rail service, and Amtrak in particular, get plenty of play on the local talk radio misinformation stations, as well as the Internet.
On a personal note, I hope the DOT gets this project off the ground, and into operation. The Madison area would be a goo
[quote user=“CG9602”]
One not-so-minor detail, here: the CP line is between Portage and Madison, not Columbus. Also, it is pretty straight. Also, now that the former CNW line (ex-Dakota 400) has been severed between Reedsburg and Camp Douglas, the CP line is the only option if one desires to upgrade service while using existing right-of-way and track.
[quote user=“jeaton”]
The CP has a very low grade branch line from Columbus to Madison. If a service would be via existing lines that would be the route.
Here is a link to a map of the existing rail lines in the state. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/docs/railmap.pdf
I don’t think the planning for service beyond Madison is past the “Here’s an idea.” stage.
If it were up to me, I’d run the service beyond Portage up the CP to Camp Douglas and then UP into the Twin Cities. I think going through Eau Claire gets the service to a higher population and also may allow easier adjustments to allignment to facilitate higher speeds. Any changes to the CP line North of LaCrosse (the route of the Empire Builder) might be limited by the river.
As clearly indicate by many post on the subject, using existing rail lines means that any service at speeds over 110 MPH is out of the question and even that is iffy. Real HSR with service with up to 200MPH means building a brand new double track electrified railroad with curves limited to less than 1 degree. If you want to figure the route, just get a Wisconsin highway map and start drawing lines. Don’t forget to go over or under streets and highways. Also, at $40 to $50 million per mile, you might want to make some notes on how to pay for the cost of buildi
having worked on some of the preliminary discussions from CP’s side many years ago, one of the big topics is state involvement. If the route goes through Eau Claire, Minnesota isn’t going to be too excited to help.
That was where Rochester came in. This was before things went sour with the DM&E.
The route from Chicago to Milwaukee to Madison goes over the Watertown to Madison branch line which CP has since sold to the state. Service west of there would come out on the Madison to Portage line, which would have to be rebuilt, and then to west on one of the possible routes noted above.
CP’s line west of Portage would have the advantage of being a single track route on a double track right of way, except for Tunnel City and the Mississippi River area at La Crosse. Depending on which way to go above Minnesota City (where the DM&E comes in) you then have to figure out how to get into the Twin Cities. BNSF gets in the mix above Hastings on the CP route.
The ex-CGW alignment from St Paul to Dodge Center is GONE(other than the stub to the Roseport Industrial area). It has been plowed under, had building built on it and was never a good ‘high speed’ route. It was a real ‘hill & dale’ line. There was a connection at Dodge Center that the CGW utilized to run on trackage rights to Rochester(about 20 miles). None of this would even be thought of for HSR. One of the folks at the meeting I did attend talked about routing the new line in the median of Hwy 52! I can just see the HSR climbing the hill south of Cannon Falls! The local Rochester group was pushing a bypass(Southern Rail Corridor) the ran south of Rochester to a new ‘terminal’ at the Rochester Airport(South of town) - a rehash of the original bypass the Mayo Clinic wanted. The idea was to also reroute DM&E traffic over this bypass(The DM&E indicated that they would not fight it, but would not lend any money to the project, and did not see any future in it(like we are not going to ‘pay’ to run on your bypass). The whole project was just another attempt to reroute the tracks out of Rochester. I am unaware of any ‘naming’ contest. The last time I saw a proposal was about a year ago(March 2009).
The ‘River Rail’ proposal pushed by Winona was to upgrade the existing CP(ex-Milw) line(it did host 100 mph Hiawatha trains at on time). It actually sounds like a good idea. I know one of the ‘movers’ in Winona, and part of this proposal is to get the old C&NW yards out of town and build a new yard up by Goodview. They would also grade seperate several crossing in town with the project. About 5 years ago, the CP was willing to add capital spending to their budget for the grade seperation, but the city backed out at the last minute due to budget problems and nothing has been done since.
The Eau Claire proposal is part of a W
There already exists a very fine service: the Hiawathas. The top speed is 79mph and it is a 95-mile run with a scheduled running time of 90 minutes. It would be an incredible waste of money to upgrade this to 110mph. With all the freight trains on that line, plus the 4 station stops, plus the speed restrictions approaching both cities, and the time and distance needed to accelerate and brake, there would be so few areas where the train would be able to maintain the speed that the time-savings would be, at most, a few minutes. Hardly worth it.
Perhaps a better investment might be more equipment and hourly service.
It will be 39 years since Minneapolis/ St Paul has had more than token passenger service. They were even talking about improved passenger service back in the 1970’s,and of course nothing ever came of it. They talked about a dedicated passenger service using the then Milwaukee Road and re-routing all freight to either the Adams line of the C&NW or BN via East Dubuque. We just kept plodding along while Britain built HST 125 trainsets which operated on right of ways engineered during the reign of Queen Victoria.
MNDOT and others should stop talking and improve Amtrak service from the Twin Cities to Chicago. Take the CP line and get the roadbed up to 125MPH standards. NO freight trains and get it up and running before we talk about expanding the service. If we could cut operating times down to 5 hours we might have a viable service which just might make some money.
400 miles in 400 minutes over 70 years ago on 3 different routes dodging freight.
What would it cost to do it again twice a day in both directions on a single route. Is there a market for it anymore?
I believe that there is a market for high speed rail. One is business travelers who would use high speed rail instead of flying. A business class that would offer first class amenities at a much more reasonable fare than first class air; including a dining car and workstations. A coach section that would offer basic transportation but offer only sandwiches,burgers, and snack food.Beverages would be limited to soft drinks and beer. They should operate Chicago to Minneapolis in 5 hours.The train should appeal to both business and pleasure travelers with the levels of service I am suggesting. Our country needs to walk the walk and prove that we can run this level of service outside the Northeast Corridor before we do any talking about 150-200 MPH trains.
The Washington Post has an editorial reprinted in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on February 2 which states High-speed rail plans are inefficient and to fix up the Northeast Corridor. Anyone who cares about High-speed rail should read it.
Go for it! Given the 400 miles in 400 minutes services of the CN&W, CMStP, and CB&Q 70+ years ago, I would hope the journey with 3-4 stops could be reduced to 4 hours.
I know I’m probably biased being a CPRS employee but any improvement for higher-speed service has just GOT to be on the CPRS mainline along the River. In Wisconsin you’ve got some different options obviously and perhaps getting the Watertown - Madison - Portage branches into the mix might not be a bad idea…
Here is the reality. If the LA to San Fran line is built and you charge $400 per person to ride it. It will take 135 people per car and 31 cars per train leaving every hour around the clock to pay back the initial cost in forty years and that does not cover earthquake damage and maintenance or upgrades. So now tell me how many people are currently travelling between Chicago and Minneapolis to justify it or make it a really needed service? Oh by the way the states and feds have spent all our money and Social Security is the next bail out (can you say hundreds of trillions of dollars) because it is in the red now. Who is going to pay for it?
Well as long as one person needs HSR, you can’t say it isn’t needed. And we will get the money to bail out social security by stimulating the economy. We will stimulate the economy by borrowing and spending money on HSR and other job-creating programs. It’s the modern way to look at money.