Chicago - East Coast Service

[jis]

You'll just have to make sure that you order high floor Talgos. Such things do exist even.

 

[Anderson]

I'm not surprised...Talgo is very versatile and I remember being told that they have made a point of setting things up so that they could sell a train that could go anywhere in the US (presuming there isn't an odd propulsion restriction such as the no-diesel-in-Penn-Station issue).

 

[jis]

Well, remember that derailment involving a Talgo that was primarily electric but had a patched in diesel engine on a car to allow it to operate in non-electrified territory? I am sure Talgo has that special power requirement figured out too.

But basically what we are talking of is a train with tilting capability. As we know there are many tilting trains that are not Talgo. So it is not at all critical that it be Talgo. In my mind at least, those low florr Talgos feel more like riding on an air conditioned go cart with fancy seats, than on a train, specially on typical US tracks.

 

[Anderson]

Well, remember that derailment involving a Talgo that was primarily electric but had a patched in diesel engine on a car to allow it to operate in non-electrified territory? I am sure Talgo has that special power requirement figured out too.

But basically what we are talking of is a train with tilting capability. As we know there are many tilting trains that are not Talgo. So it is not at all critical that it be Talgo. In my mind at least, those low florr Talgos feel more like riding on an air conditioned go cart with fancy seats, than on a train, specially on typical US tracks.

Yeah, I'm not really a fan of them, either...for a large list of reasons.

 

[Paulus]

Paulus: If I'm not mistaken, there's nothing saying that you couldn't do a Talgo set with sleepers. Talgo has built sleeper trains, if I'm not mistaken...we just haven't ordered them in the US yet.

That being said...NYP-CHI via BUF is slightly limited by distance and NYP-CHI via PGH is limited by alignment. That's a large part of why neither railroad (NYC or Pennsy) ever managed to outdo the other by more than about 15 minutes IIRC: You could bump the average speed on the NYC line up further but it has to go further (960 miles vs. 827 miles). If both averaged 60 MPH, the NYC alignment would run 16:00 while the Pennsy alignment would run 13:47. I don't believe the Pennsy ever got below 15:30 (53.4 MPH) due to alignment and slope issues in Pennsylvania.

I was thinking for commonality reasons to keep costs down but completely forgot about the platform height issue. On the other hand, capacity could very well be an issue; they aren't exactly high capacity trains to begin with and cutting 37 seats for five compartments doesn't strike me as the best trade off.

There's at least one claim that a Talgo engineer figured that they could cut 1:20 from the current Pittsburgh-Harrisburg schedule while keeping the same padding. I'd anticipate at least another ten minutes of padding cut to drop it down to a 4 hour travel time.

 

[jis]

The question of course still remains as to what NS (and of course out dear friends at FRA) will allow in the way of underbalance, since they have to deal with the consequences on track maintenance. And I also shudder to think how a standard Talgo will ride on a route with the sort of heavy freight traffic that the Harrisburg - Pittsburgh route carries. As I said - air conditioned go cart . I suspect something like LRC or ICE-T derivative might be preferable.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

I think it is quite possible that SOTL happens without IN being entirely on board. You'd need substantial federal funding, agreed, but I think this is an odd case where the state can probably see its way towards funding this...if only because all three routes the state runs (Wolverine, Blue Water, and Pere Marquette) run through there to Chicago (and IIRC Chicago is the biggest destination for all of them). On the other end of things, I don't think Indiana (even a pro-rail alternate universe version of Indiana) would have that much stake in SOTL...

...

I started out extremely pessimistic about funding SOTL

(short of another Stimulus windfall) for all the good reasons

discussed here.

But IF federal funding flows again, if it flows at all, then

SOTL could happen fairly quickly. And politically I expect

that spending elsewhere in the country will be needed to

balance the coming big investments in the NEC.

Now look at it this way:

SOTL includes major mileage (and major costs to remedy

the problems) between Union Station and the Illinois/Indiana

border. As you point out, the three "Michigan routes" are

also Chicago routes, as are the Lake Shore and Capitol Ltd.

And with the state's record supporting passenger trains,

I could see Illinois picking up the matching share required

for federal funding on the portion within Illinois.

Subtract out the Illinois portion of SOTL to see what's left

of the problem. Hmmmn. Since it's only at the Draft EIS stage,

and the preferred alternative route has not been chosen,

the estimated cost of the Illinois-Indiana portion is at best

a range from about $1.5 Billion to $2 Billion. (More stuff

is planned within Michigan.)

On the back on my envelope I'm guessing that SOTL, from

Chicago to where the 110 tracks now begin in Porter, IN,

will come to $1.8 Billion. I'll make a wild guess that a

third of that will be within Illinois. That leaves $1.2 Billion

of it within Indiana.

If the feds, thru the FRA, pick up 80% of the costs, somebody

else will need to come up with about a 20% match, roughly

$240 million. There. That's not so bad. LOL.

Of course no one sees Indiana putting up a quarter of a million

on a route that primarily benefits Michigan and Illinois. But they

could chip in a little something. Actually, Indiana will benefit to

some extent. Currently Chicago-Waterloo, serving Ft Wayne,

takes almost 3 hours. Chop 50 minutes out of that run time and

they'll need a much bigger parking lot at Waterloo. And Elkhart.

Maybe South Bend, too.

Michigan will have to put in a lot of something before anyone

dares to ask Indiana for even a little something. It's their baby,

so they could come up with something something. Asking

the Michigan legislature for funds to be spent in Indiana will be

ticklish, but not hopeless. Double-tracking, no. A new bridge

over the Whatchacallit River, sounds better, maybe so.

Old reliable Illinois might put in a little something for a few key

Indiana projects as well, recalling that Chicago will benefit

just as much as Michigan.

Norfolk Southern might chip in a bit. Getting 7 Amtrak trains

off its main line and onto dedicated passenger tracks should

be worth a lot. Assorted improvements like flyovers, bridges,

switches, and other 'get out of each other's way' stuff could

have direct benefits to NS, and shake lose a few millions.

The precedent for funding the rest of the match needed is the

Amtrak-owned segment Porter-Kalamazoo. To get this stretch

up to 110-mph, both the State of Michigan and Amtrak spent

money over several years. So I'd expect the balance of the funds

to come out of Amtrak's puny capital budget.

I hope Amtrak's capital budget isn't quite so puny by the time

the SOTL contracts are signed 5 or 10 years from now. But

$100 million, even $200 million from Amtrak, isn't so hard if

spread over 5 or 10 years. And any spending here would be

well worth it.

 

[Anderson]

The best plan there would probably be to run the trains PGH-NYP and work out a deal to have NYS run them on the Adirondack as well (where you could probably save quite a bit of time if you could take the curves a little faster up north). The only other route hubbed out of NYP that would benefit particularly from Talgo technology would be the Cardinal...and there you might be able to seriously explore the possibility of a Cincy-New York day train if CSX would allow it (ha, ha...). There's also the Vermonter, but that hubs out of Washington...

...then again, how much time could you knock off the Cap if you had Talgo equipment in use?

 

[jis]

Actually the Empire Corridor would benefit mightily from any tilting technology train, not just Talgo. Have you taken a close look at both the trackage along the Hudson and also along the Mohawk?

 

[Anderson]

I hadn't looked at anything past Albany. Along the Hudson south of there...yeah, I can see it there as well given how much the line hugs the river.