Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

What is freight traffic like on the mainline corridor, particularly between around Rondout (where the MD-N commuter service branches off) and South Milwaukee? That mostly straight ~40 mile segment with few grade crossings per mile and low population density would seem to be the ideal stretch to upgrade to 110mph speeds, which would cut around 15 minutes (17%) off the total travel time of the route. Combined with improvements to improve speeds near the terminals, a 70 minute service seems well within reach.

Can’t say anything technical, but I’m a fairly frequent user of the line and we typically pass by at least one freight on the other track, but there’s minimal interference—over the past five years the train’s stopped maybe twice to deal with freight, but it didn’t have any real noticeable affect on the schedule from what I remember (the only time I was off schedule was when we were stuck behind a northbound Empire Builder that pulled out of Union Station late, pushing back my arrival something like a half hour).

[ardecila]

What bi-level cars are we talking about? The most likely candidates are another order of California Cars, or a diesel adaptation of the never-built Talgo 22.



It's also possible that they could get some Metra-style gallery cars from Nippon Sharyo.

[Markitect]

Originally Posted by electricron

The total Wisconsin order would now be 4 14 car trainsets and 8 locomotives. That's also a total of 56 cars which are about half the length of traditional cars, meaning the equivalent of 28 cars, ie 4x7.

Wisconsin would be buying twice as many locomotives as trains.

Well, I suppose "locomotives" could actually mean powered cabs as well as unpowered cabs (which is how the Hi is operated now, as a push-pull)...the general media types don't always distinguish the difference.

So it would end up being: (1 power unit + 14 cars + 1 unpowered cab) x 4 trains.

There's your 56 cars and 8 "locomotives."

I will point out that this is the exact same number of cars and "locomotives" Wisconsin would have wound up with had the original Federal grant not been returned.

I suppose in theory, Talgo could still end up building these new passenger car sets.

[afiggatt]

Originally Posted by ardecila

What bi-level cars are we talking about? The most likely candidates are another order of California Cars, or a diesel adaptation of the never-built Talgo 22.

The bi-levels will have to be compliant with the recently released US standard specs for bi-levels to be eligible for FRA funding. See http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/DocsSpecs.aspx. Amtrak, the states, the FRA, and industry have been working on a standard set of specs for intercity passenger trains for a while. (These are separate from HSR trainsets.) The bi-levels in the specs are mostly based on the bi-level California cars. Amtrak will be using these specs in their Superliner replacement/fleet expansion order for their long distance trains.

[ardecila]

What a pain in the ass. A common spec that detailed will stifle any kind of innovation. Manufacturers will be producing a commodity instead of a differentiated product. The only customization will be in decals and interior finishes.

Seriously... they won't even allow painted finishes, they all have to be exposed stainless steel like the ass-ugly Horizon cars, and they can't even be fluted.

Stainless steel carshells shall be unpainted, except as specified for exterior graphics. Side sheets shall have a horizontal, 36 grit sanded finish. End sheets shall have a vertical, 36 grit sanded finish. All sanded surfaces shall have the same finish whether applied by hand or machine. Corrugated stainless steel shall have a 2B finish.

Nor is there a provision for multiple-units, which is a more efficient mode than push-pull.

These things are being purchased for corridor service anyway, so the presumable need for a common spec is ridiculous. The states will own them, so Amtrak can't just transfer them to a different line across the country unless Amtrak purchases them.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

What a pain in the ass. A common spec that detailed will stifle any kind of innovation. Manufacturers will be producing a commodity instead of a differentiated product. The only customization will be in decals and interior finishes.


These things are being purchased for corridor service anyway, so the presumable need for a common spec is ridiculous. The states will own them, so Amtrak can't just transfer them to a different line across the country unless Amtrak purchases them.

I completely agree with you. Besides, Amtrak formed a common specification for themselves, I don't think there's a requirement to actually buy them to be eligible for Federal funds. Amtrak may want states to buy these for Amtrak to operate them, but states should be able to buy anything they wish, and to contract with anyone they wish to operate their trains as well.

The only requirement to qualify for Federal funds is to meet the Buy America Act, which only requires around 60% American made components and final assembly in America.

[Markitect]

Reading the various newspaper articles from last week's announcement, and then the one from yesterday, and comparing it to the joint application posted earlier...there seem to be some inconsistencies. Thus the confusion.

Last week it was reported that Wisconsin's request included two new 14-car sets.

This week it's reported to be for only 14 new cars (12 bi-levels and 2 business class/cafe, as per the actual application)

I made a mistake yesterday with the Business Journal article, saying it was for 2 14-car trainsets, when the article says it's just 14 cars. Oops.

But the article also made a mistake saying Minnesota was part of the joint application, when in actuality it's Michigan. Oops.


So for the Hiawatha, I suppose we'll have to revise it a bit as such:

2 Talgo trains (14 single-level cars each)

2 most likely non-Talgo trains (6 bi-levels, 1 business class/cafe each)

Still quite a mess, though.

Originally Posted by afiggatt

The application is entirely for stimulus money with no state matching funds.

The matching funds Wisconsin would provide is for the maintenance facility, which is why it doesn't show up on the joint application for equipment purchase.

[ardecila]

Rail exec charged with illegal donations to Wis. gov
10:34 a.m. CDT, April 11, 2011

Prosecutors have charged a railroad magnate with making illegal campaign contributions to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's campaign.

Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Company chief executive William Gardner faces one count of excessive political contributions and one count of unlawful political contribution in Washington County. Both counts are felonies.

Gardner didn't immediately return a message left at his office.

Last May, Gardner apologized for using company money to reimburse employees' political donations to Walker. The governor, who was in the middle of a primary contest at the time, returned about $44,000 in contributions. Donating corporate money to political candidates is illegal in Wisconsin.

The Wisconsin & Southern owns the trackage from Watertown to Madison that the extended Hiawatha would have used.

[Markitect]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The Wisconsin & Southern owns the trackage from Watertown to Madison that the extended Hiawatha would have used.

A small correction: the State actually owns those tracks, but WSOR leases them.

The company (which hasn't been anti-passenger/HSR as far as I've ever heard) would have benefited from the HSR upgrades that Walker opposed.

[ardecila]

If Gardner's company would have benefited from HSR, then why did he donate to Walker?

Walker's opposition to the HSR project always seemed a little suspicious - his opposition was supposedly based on the grounds that Wisconsin might, someday, have to pay some tiny amount to keep the trains running. This was despite the fact that all of the capital funding was coming from the Feds, AND the fact that LaHood offered to reimburse Wisconsin for the operating subsidy.

If fiscal conservatism was really Walker's goal, then why spend so much energy attacking something that would cost the state nothing, and in the long run, only cost the state less than $10 million per year out of a total transportation budget of over $1 billion?

[jpIllInoIs]

It doesn't HAVE to be about passenger rail. WSOR is a freight rail line, and it turns out soon after Walker's election, WSOR won a nice grant from the state. Coincidence? I think not....

http://www.joc.com/government-regula...s-freight-rail

[ardecila]

$133 million in U.S. funding saved for Create's Englewood Flyover rail project
Posted by Greg H. at 4/12/2011 10:55 AM CDT

It looks like funding for a local transportation fix that business groups consider critical for Chicago's economy — the so-called Englewood Flyover — has been saved from the federal budget ax.

But the locals would be well advised to get the money out the door as soon as possible.

The offices of both U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Chicago, report that $133 million in federal funds allotted for the Englewood Flyover was not touched in the $38.5-billion budget deal cut between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans even though House Republicans earlier had proposed killing the project.

Details of the deal were released overnight.

Also safe, at least for now, are several other Illinois infrastructure projects that had been in jeopardy under the version of the fiscal 2011 budget passed by the GOP-majority U.S. House.

Untouched in the final detail, according to Mr. Durbin's office, are $230 million for the Chicago-to-Quad-Cities rail line, $3.71 million to replace the Wadsworth bridge on the Chicago/Milwaukee Amtrak line and $2.2 million for the purchase of electric buses for the Chicago Transit Authority.

Good to know that the flyover project is safe, but why the hell hasn't it started construction by now? They already had a detailed construction plan in 2007. Whatever happened to shovel-ready, dammit?

[ChiPsy]

I second that question. Are we going to play around with this until the 2012 election threatens to unseat our funding connections??

[Beta_Magellan]

I’m surprised that CREATE’s been kind of invisible as of late. It’s a public-private partnership whose main beneficiaries are freight and commuter rail carriers—I’d think CREATE would have a lot of partisan crossover appeal, much more than other nationally-publicized measures like Los Angeles’s 30/10. I can think of some potential reasons why:

• The administration doesn’t want to give the impression of Chicago/Illinois favoritism, even if it’s an instance where it’s a good idea that can be applied nationally. I’m sure the DOT has this in mind, but it’s probably not a huge factor IMO.

• The freights don’t want to play ball—they’d rather deal with bottlenecks and deferred maintenance than keep things in good working order. Maybe?

• CREATE’s only really applicable to Chicago, which has the distinction of being a freight rail nexus with a lot of passenger trains (something that someplace like Kansas City can’t claim). While Chicago is almost unrivaled in terms of freight and well above the North American average in terms of passenger rail, I don’t see why Chicago isn’t just the biggest example of how private and public sector funds could be combined to improve the local rail network.

•Unlike 30/10, which has generated a lot of positive buzz, freight doesn’t deal as much with commuters and doesn’t offer much in terms of new infrastructure that large numbers of people will directly use daily. I think this is the big reason—the only real change in the Metra map after CREATE is finished will be rerouting the SWS to LaSalle Street station—everything else is just greater reliability and and quicker travel times. These are important, but aren’t dramatic. And freight also have a poor importance to drama ratio—people just take their goods for granted, forgetting how they get there in the first place. As such, freight rail improvements, though critical for our country’s economic future, are ultimately not visible enough to garner mass support.

[ardecila]

That's true, but there are several flyovers in the project which are large and highly visible. In addition to one at Englewood, there's the one at Grand Crossing, and then two on the Heritage Corridor/Amtrak line to St. Louis, at Brighton Park and Summit. The 71st Street Corridor project may also include a flyover, but it will definitely include a new viaduct between the SouthWest Service and Rock Island Lines (I believe this will be a flat junction instead of a flyover).

You're also forgetting about the grade separations, which have plenty of visibility, and are usually pretty popular for their power to reduce congestion and delays on the road network. The CREATE plan includes 25 of these projects, and their benefits to the freight network are minimal - they exist entirely to reduce road congestion.

I agree with Point #3, but other cities have similar issues where the CREATE model is applicable. New Orleans has the Rail Gateway plan which, despite being smaller in size, has the same scope as CREATE. It's also a public-private partnership with a similar management structure.

I think the lack of momentum right now has to do with the national economy. Freight railroads don't see the urgency when their traffic isn't growing.

[ardecila]

Missouri posted their HSIPR applications to their website. The one I am most curious about - the Merchants Bridge replacement - is a full-on replacement, using only the old bridge piers. The main spans will be replaced with new ones capable of bearing much higher loads, removing all speed restrictions from the bridge. The grant specifies a through-truss design for the spans. The curves and turnouts at either end of the bridge will also be upgraded from a 15mph standard to a 30mph standard (maybe higher with Talgo equipment). Total cost: $150m. Of that, St. Louis TRRA (the bridge's private owner) is covering 40%, and asking Missouri/the Feds for the 60% match.

The project is also paired with a double-tracking of the line from North Market Street to Biddle Street, where the riverfront viaduct starts. This project is split into a different request. Hopefully the upcoming Gateway Arch project will allow space for a second track in the tunnel. There already is space for a second track... the archway in the Eads bridge approach is the bottleneck.

You can find the other applications, as well as Missouri's applications from earlier years, here:
http://www.modot.org/othertransporta...ail/documents/

[the urban politician]

Chicago-St. Louis fast train gets $186 mil. of Florida funds
By: Paul Merrion May 04, 2011

(Crain's) — Florida’s loss is Illinois’ gain, as the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded an additional $186 million Wednesday to the Chicago-St. Louis high-speed rail project.

[Centropolis]

good...................

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Rather than building two 220mph lines south from Chicago, the St. Louis and Indy services could share tracks as far as Kankakee or Peotone, where the Indy line could break off to the east in the median of the Illiana Expressway. This would save the aggravation and cost of building two lines through the city/suburbs, and get the hardest part out of the way first.

Some interesting news on this front... Winters is imagining a line to Rockford but the legislation could also enable a line in the Illiana Expressway, assuming the Tollway ends up running the Illiana (which seems likely). It is also a necessary step to allow the STAR line... Regardless, it's a welcome development that one legal obstacle will be removed for future rail lines in the Chicago area.

Bill would bring railway to Illinois Tollway
By Brian Leaf, Rockford Register-Star
Posted Apr 30, 2011 @ 11:14 PM

ROCKFORD — Last year at a high-speed rail briefing, Rep. Dave Winters saw a map of a rail network fanning out from Chicago that would take passengers to Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Minneapolis and St. Louis at 220 mph.

A spur on the map by SNCF, France’s state-owned railroad, went to Rockford. It followed the Northwest Tollway.

“They had looked at the Interstate around Chicago and said in many cases, if they could use the right-of-way, they could put the train down the middle of the road or off on one side and redo exit
ramps,” said Winters, R-Shirland.

There was one problem. The Illinois Toll Highway Authority can’t develop rail lines on its property.
A bill Winters has sponsored would change that. It would let the tollway use its rights of way for railways. House Bill 2270 was passed 109-1 last month and assigned Wednesday to the Senate Transportation Committee.

“They would treat it similar to the concessions at the oases where the tollway owns the real estate but turns around and leases (the) space,” Winters said.

[LMich]

Florida, your loss is our game, it seems:

LaHood expected to make high-speed rail announcement in Detroit

David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau

May 7, 2011

Washington— Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will visit Detroit on Monday to make what his department on Friday called a "major" announcement on funding for high-speed rail service.

Including a joint bid with three other Midwest states, Michigan has applied for more than $560 million in funding.

The state wants track improvements in Detroit, a transit terminal in Ann Arbor and new equipment, as well as more funding for high-speed service.

LaHood will be joined by Detroit Mayor Dave Bing; Gov. Rick Snyder; Sen. Carl Levin, D-Detroit; Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing; and other elected leaders at Detroit's Amtrak station Monday afternoon. Bing's office declined to comment ahead of the announceme

...

Snyder's office said the state sought more than $200 million for four projects, including:

$196.5 million for route improvements over the next three years between Kalamazoo and Dearborn to allow trains to travel up to 110 mph.

Tim Hoeffner, MDOT administrator of high-speed rail and innovative projects advancement, said track improvements could be done by late 2013 and shave 50 minutes off the Detroit-Chicago trip, down to about four hours.

$5.2 million for maintenance along the same route, beginning this summer.

$2.9 million for the West Detroit Connection Track Universal Crossover and a rail bridge. Amtrak trains make a slow, left-hand turn from a Conrail track to a Canadian National track, and improvements could cut 10 minutes off the trip, Hoeffner said.

$3.5 million to build a terminal in Ann Arbor for Amtrak trains and University of Michigan and city buses.

The state also is among four states jointly seeking $366.7 million to buy 31 locomotives and 100 coaches for use in Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Missouri. The award would replace train equipment on all three Michigan Amtrak lines: the Blue Water, Pere Marquette and Wolverine.

...

Can't wait to here the news. LaHood has been in Detroit more often than any federal official in my memory. This has the added benefit of helping the commuter line still chugging ahead, here.