Possibly second frequency Milwaukee-Twin Cities

[Ispolkom]

. Would Minnesota be able to provide state funding to buy additional bi-level corridor cars as part of the Midwest order? Many things to work out and lots of hurdles to clear before corridor service can start.

There's no possibility of getting state funding in Minnesota for rail, with the present political situation. The big infrastructure debate this year is going to be a new Vikings football stadium. I'd love a Twin Cities-Chicago train, since I can't rely on the eastbound Empire Builder, but I don't see it happening.

From AlanB

And once the new Central light rail line opens, I'd expect a good bump in ridership on Northstar too, as people will be able to get to more places.

I'm concerned that the Central Corridor line will have big problems getting ridership. Unlike the present Hiawatha line the Central Corridor line will be mostly street running, with the traffic signals controlling the train, rather than the train controlling the traffic signals. Add to that the excessively close stations that my city of St. Paul has demanded, and it will take longer on the light-rail to travel between the two downtowns than on the present express bus.

 

[Gratt]

The overnight train makes the most sense on this route.

It also requires sleepers which no one has.

Unless IL/MN pay for an order of Viewliner or new Superliner sleepers I do not see this happening.

But if it does, it could be interesting to view this as one big step to a renewed North Coast Limited train, which has a snowballs chance in hell to happen even if the start up money is somehow found.

 

[MikefromCrete]

The overnight train makes the most sense on this route.

It also requires sleepers which no one has.

Unless IL/MN pay for an order of Viewliner or new Superliner sleepers I do not see this happening.

But if it does, it could be interesting to view this as one big step to a renewed North Coast Limited train, which has a snowballs chance in hell to happen even if the start up money is somehow found.

Illinois and Minnesota are not going to pay for any new sleepers. And no state will pay for a train that passes through in the middle of the night.

 

[Anderson]

1) One thing that at least one of the railroads did to "stretch" a consist for an extra run was to extend a CHI-MSP train to Fargo. I'll go on the record and say that such a run seems dubious unless there's some big Fargo-MSP market I'm missing. Turning the train to run to Duluth makes much more sense, and running it to Rochester or somewhere else might also make sense on paper. If you wanted to do something, though, my vote would be for Duluth as one of X number of NLX trains...just one that happened to offer a single-seat ride to CHI as well.

2) A night train makes a lot of sense...as the "third" train on the route (i.e. after a morning and an afternoon departure get rolling, the night train slides in to handle folks who want to be somewhere by morning). The one nice thing about a 7-10 hour overnight train is that you probably don't need a dining car if you can get a decent hot breakfast option out of a cafe/diner-lite...and yes, I say this as the guy who wants good food service wherever he can get it. Consider, though, that a lot of trains with wacky times somewhere make a lot of sense as part of a larger service even if they might not make sense alone. A perfect example IMHO is the Norfolk train (which has an early out/late back time...great if you've got a later train out/earlier one back, but alone a real headache to even think about).

3) A question: If Walker gets thrown out the door in the recall, is there any decent chance of the Madison train getting revived?

 

[johnny.menhennet]

Although this would not be economical sleeper-wise, I was thinking that a one consist train would be fantastic. I think a train that leaves Chicago at about 9:00A, and gets to SPUD about 4:00P/4:30Pish. Then it lays over there, and leaves SPUD at about 11:00P/11:30P into CHI at 6:00A-7:00Aish. I think that these schedules are far enough apart from the Builder schedules that it would not really steal business from it. Using one consist, I would expect the consist to be:

P42DC

baggage

Transdorm

Sleeper

CCC

Coach

Coach

Coach

Coach (possible, due not know too much about demand, but probably not)

I know that these sleepers would not get much action CHI-SPUD, but the ability to leave SPUD late at night and be in Chicago when it's time to wake up would be great. The eastbound would mostly be for end-to-end travel, rather than getting on at intermediate points, but the westbound would be a fantastic option for most travelers there. This equip consist would utilize a CCC, which are plentiful, as Alan pointed out in the Coast Starlight thread. Only one sleeper and one transdorm would be used. Any comments on if you think these would be good choices? A third train would leave SPUD mid-afternoon and Chicago for an overnight to SPUD

 

[afigg]

2) A night train makes a lot of sense...as the "third" train on the route (i.e. after a morning and an afternoon departure get rolling, the night train slides in to handle folks who want to be somewhere by morning). The one nice thing about a 7-10 hour overnight train is that you probably don't need a dining car if you can get a decent hot breakfast option out of a cafe/diner-lite...and yes, I say this as the guy who wants good food service wherever he can get it. Consider, though, that a lot of trains with wacky times somewhere make a lot of sense as part of a larger service even if they might not make sense alone. A perfect example IMHO is the Norfolk train (which has an early out/late back time...great if you've got a later train out/earlier one back, but alone a real headache to even think about).

I don't see an overnight train until there are 3-4 day trains. The state is not going to subsidize an overnight train with sleeper cars, period. Given the distance, the focus should be to fund and implement track and signal improvements over time to reduce the trip time. It is higher speed rail, not reviving overnight slow sleeper trains because that was done 50 years ago.

3) A question: If Walker gets thrown out the door in the recall, is there any decent chance of the Madison train getting revived?

If Walker gets kicked out and a Democrat becomes Governor, there will certainly be a lot of talk about reviving the Madison train project. But until WI can line up $800 million plus of federal and state funding, it is not going to proceed.

 

[Anderson]

Although this would not be economical sleeper-wise, I was thinking that a one consist train would be fantastic. I think a train that leaves Chicago at about 9:00A, and gets to SPUD about 4:00P/4:30Pish. Then it lays over there, and leaves SPUD at about 11:00P/11:30P into CHI at 6:00A-7:00Aish. I think that these schedules are far enough apart from the Builder schedules that it would not really steal business from it. Using one consist, I would expect the consist to be:

P42DC

baggage

Transdorm

Sleeper

CCC

Coach

Coach

Coach

Coach (possible, due not know too much about demand, but probably not)

I know that these sleepers would not get much action CHI-SPUD, but the ability to leave SPUD late at night and be in Chicago when it's time to wake up would be great. The eastbound would mostly be for end-to-end travel, rather than getting on at intermediate points, but the westbound would be a fantastic option for most travelers there. This equip consist would utilize a CCC, which are plentiful, as Alan pointed out in the Coast Starlight thread. Only one sleeper and one transdorm would be used. Any comments on if you think these would be good choices? A third train would leave SPUD mid-afternoon and Chicago for an overnight to SPUD

I'm not seeing it...particularly as the schedule one way doesn't look anything like the schedule the other way. Mind you, I think there's another option: Drop the sleepers in MSP and turn the train to return to Chicago in the afternoon. Attach the sleepers to another train heading back to Chicago overnight. You'd have two sets of (1) sleeper and (1) transdorm (one going each way each night) and you'd avoid having a train sitting in MSP all day.

So you'd have this:

  [1]      [3] 	[5]                   	[6] 	[4] 	[2]
 7:15a   2:15p  10:30p  d  Chicago  	a   7:00a   3:55p  10:45p 
 3:30p  10:31p   7:15a  a  Minneapolis  d  10:15p   7:50a   2:30p

5/6 is basically your old North Star. 3/4 is the present Builder. 1/2 is your added day train. Your sleepers would leave CHI on #5 and return on #6; however, the coaches could turn as #2 and then come back the next day as #1 (then returning to CHI on #6). Unfortunately, I can't tell if you could extract any benefits out of this as far as saving a required set at this stage...you might need to get to 3 trains per day that didn't run further out to realize anything meaningful here except saving space in MSP.

(Note: The editor is being a pain about not getting the spaces to line up, but I think the sample table is clear enough)

 

[johnny.menhennet]

Yeah that makes much more sense. I get it. But for only one added train, I guess there is not an efficient way to use one consist

 

[jis]

The tried and tested old North Star schedule from the 70s may be a good starting point. It was something like:

10:30p   d  Chicago               a   7:10a

12:07a   a  Milwaukee             d   5:40a
12:12a   d                        a   5:35a

7:15a    a  Minneapolis/St. Paul  a  10:15p

But such a train would naturally require Sleeper(s) service, and would be business friendly.

The other possibility would be a schedule resembling the Milwaukee Road Afternoon Hiawatha which departs each end around noon arriving at the other end at around 7pm. If the westbound departure is considered to be too close to the EB it could be moved to the old Morning Hiawatha timing leaving Chicago at 10am arriving into Minneapolis at sometime after 5pm. This would naturally be a day train and would be cheaper to operate, sort of Palmetto style and would probably have better farebox recovery, as does the Palmetto.

Thanks for that, I really don't know the history of the route, just what would work for me. North Star timing is great for a MSP based rider, 14 hours of scheduled downtime is tempting to do something else with the trainset though.

No state is going to pay for a train that passes through in the middle of the night.

I could also be run without a Sleeper, as is 66/67, which in spite of that does brisk business. Nice deep reclining seats equipped Business Class would be found to be quite familiar by the airline travel savvy business folks I should think.

I do suspect though the first new frequency would be what would amount to reinstatement of the Morning Hiawatha westbound (say around 9am to 4pm) and the Afternoon Hiawatha eastbound (say around noon to 7pm). It will require two consists, as a starter each being something like 2 Coaches 1 BC and one Cafe using California Car like bi-level cars. Of course pulled by one standard midwest diesel unit, whatever that is.

Also BTW, it may be a good idea to not use this train to sub for any Hiawatha Service train between CHI and MKE. Would be good to run this non-stop CHI to at least MKA, perhaps spaced such that people from the previous Hiawatha can easily transfer to this at MKE and also for the eastbound people for intermediate stops can easily transfer to the next Hiawatha at MKE.

 

[MikefromCrete]

The tried and tested old North Star schedule from the 70s may be a good starting point. It was something like:

10:30p   d  Chicago               a   7:10a

12:07a   a  Milwaukee             d   5:40a
12:12a   d                        a   5:35a

7:15a    a  Minneapolis/St. Paul  a  10:15p

But such a train would naturally require Sleeper(s) service, and would be business friendly.

The other possibility would be a schedule resembling the Milwaukee Road Afternoon Hiawatha which departs each end around noon arriving at the other end at around 7pm. If the westbound departure is considered to be too close to the EB it could be moved to the old Morning Hiawatha timing leaving Chicago at 10am arriving into Minneapolis at sometime after 5pm. This would naturally be a day train and would be cheaper to operate, sort of Palmetto style and would probably have better farebox recovery, as does the Palmetto.

Thanks for that, I really don't know the history of the route, just what would work for me. North Star timing is great for a MSP based rider, 14 hours of scheduled downtime is tempting to do something else with the trainset though.

No state is going to pay for a train that passes through in the middle of the night.

I could also be run without a Sleeper, as is 66/67, which in spite of that does brisk business. Nice deep reclining seats equipped Business Class would be found to be quite familiar by the airline travel savvy business folks I should think.

I do suspect though the first new frequency would be what would amount to reinstatement of the Morning Hiawatha westbound (say around 9am to 4pm) and the Afternoon Hiawatha eastbound (say around noon to 7pm). It will require two consists, as a starter each being something like 2 Coaches 1 BC and one Cafe using California Car like bi-level cars. Of course pulled by one standard midwest diesel unit, whatever that is.

Also BTW, it may be a good idea to not use this train to sub for any Hiawatha Service train between CHI and MKE. Would be good to run this non-stop CHI to at least MKA, perhaps spaced such that people from the previous Hiawatha can easily transfer to this at MKE and also for the eastbound people for intermediate stops can easily transfer to the next Hiawatha at MKE.

Now this is good thinking. A morning departure out of Chicago, afternoon run out of Twin Cities. Leave the Hiawathas alone. They do a great job of moving people between two metropolitan areas. No need to muck up the schedule with possible late running semi-long distance trains. Two consists would be needed, but as trains are added to the schedule, some better turnaround could be realized. The train could use cars from the midwestern pool of California/Surfliner type cars.

 

[fredevad]

Not to mention the 6 and 8am Hiawathas are already packed. You'd end up with standing room only trains for 1.5 hours of the trip and make people want to drive instead.

 

[Trogdor]

No need to run a transition sleeper / dorm car on a run like that. It's only 8 hours end to end. It's no different than a 66/67 type of operation. Just keep the cafe open all night.

 

[Anderson]

Not to mention the 6 and 8am Hiawathas are already packed. You'd end up with standing room only trains for 1.5 hours of the trip and make people want to drive instead.

I think it goes without saying that any CHI-MSP train would be reserved. A distinct possibility, too, is that the CHI-MSP train would have far more capacity than the present morning trains.

 

[jis]

The neat thing is, the incremental cost of a second overnight frequency which does not carry any Sleeper is just the cost of staff, track charge and fuel. no additional equipment needed (well almost).

If you want to add a Sleeper find two Sleepers, and unhook the Sleepers at either end after the night run, and hook them on just before the night run in the evening.

 

[George Harris]

Here it is from a 2007 UPRR employee timetable.

183 miles from Minneapolis to the junction with the current Amtrak route at Camp Douglas WI:

All but about 20 miles at 30 mph or less. The remainder at 40 to 50 mph.

The crossing at Wyeville has been removed.

The 9.2 miles from Wyeville to Camp Douglas is classified as an Industrial lead and all but 1.5 miles is designated out of service. Therefore, this section would require a complete rebuild.

To get this 183 mile line up to a reasonable speed so Amtrak could run through Eau Claire would cost megabucks.

The line currently used by Amtrak, the ex-Milwaukee Road, was at one time mostly double track and had a 100 mph speed limt. Both the second track and the signal system necessary for that speed are long gone. If large money becomes available to improve Chicago to Twin Cities service, it appears that it would be better spent on this route to improve signals, upgrade track and add siding and sections of double track at appropriate locations.

The basic service needed to attract meaningful patronage would be an overnight and two day trains, and the Empire Builder. The Empire builder should not be considered as one of the "corridor" trains as the eastbound run would have reliability problems due to its West Coast origin.

 

[fredevad]

Don't the freight lines share in any of the upgrade costs? It seems to me they would benefit from a freight speed increase with upgrades as well.

 

[jis]

Don't the freight lines share in any of the upgrade costs? It seems to me they would benefit from a freight speed increase with upgrades as well.

The optimum speed for priority freight appears to be 60-70mph. So at this point gaining the ability to run any faster does not mean much to them.

 

[Anderson]

Don't the freight lines share in any of the upgrade costs? It seems to me they would benefit from a freight speed increase with upgrades as well.

The optimum speed for priority freight appears to be 60-70mph. So at this point gaining the ability to run any faster does not mean much to them.

The problem with faster running is that:

1) Sooner or later, you start shaking the cargo to death; and

2) The time saved by faster running tends to be negligible in practical terms. Witness the Santa Fe "Super C" freight train being withdrawn in the 70s. It was a few hours faster than the "normal" express freight trains (40 hours LAX-CHI), but the time savings for cargo just didn't tend to matter in the end.

Upgrading 1000 miles of track from 70 MPH freight to 80 MPH freight whacks about 90 minutes off a freight shipment...but when shipping times are usually measured in days rather than hours, this becomes academic. This is even the case to some extent with super-LD train trips: Notice that, for example, with the Zephyr or the Builder, we talk about speeding up the trip from CHI-DEN or CHI-MSP (and occasionally further along the plains), but rarely the whole trip itself...there's just not much competition on super-long runs like that, and if the question is one of operations over about 24-26 hours, even whacking 4-5 hours (a big improvement in many cases) becomes a matter of academic debate.

Mind you, tracks that can handle 70 MPH freight can often also handle 90 MPH passenger trains (it's only signal issues that cap stuff off at 79 MPH)...and might well be able to handle stuff in the 100-110 MPH range as well without too much trouble as long as there's enough capacity to allow passing.

 

[George Harris]

The problem with faster running is that:1) Sooner or later, you start shaking the cargo to death; and

Not really true. FRA track safety standards see to that one.

2) The time saved by faster running tends to be negligible in practical terms. Witness the Santa Fe "Super C" freight train being withdrawn in the 70s. It was a few hours faster than the "normal" express freight trains (40 hours LAX-CHI), but the time savings for cargo just didn't tend to matter in the end.

Very true

Upgrading 1000 miles of track from 70 MPH freight to 80 MPH freight whacks about 90 minutes off a freight shipment

Not even that much. When people talk about speed ups, they tend to forget about alignment issues. Unless you spend the megabucks necessary to improve curvature adn grades the increased maximum speed will not be available throughout.

Mind you, tracks that can handle 70 MPH freight can often also handle 90 MPH passenger trains (it's only signal issues that cap stuff off at 79 MPH)

True

and might well be able to handle stuff in the 100-110 MPH range as well without too much trouble as long as there's enough capacity to allow passing.

Once you get above 90 mph you are moving from FRA Class 5 to FRA Class 6 requirements, which means that there are a number of other FRA requirements that come into play, none of which would be of any benenfit to 70 nph freight operation. These additional requirements explain the resounding lack of enthusiasm that the various railroad companies have with any talk about passenger train operations above 90 mph.

 

[Anderson]

The problem with faster running is that:1) Sooner or later, you start shaking the cargo to death; and

Not really true. FRA track safety standards see to that one.

2) The time saved by faster running tends to be negligible in practical terms. Witness the Santa Fe "Super C" freight train being withdrawn in the 70s. It was a few hours faster than the "normal" express freight trains (40 hours LAX-CHI), but the time savings for cargo just didn't tend to matter in the end.

Very true

Upgrading 1000 miles of track from 70 MPH freight to 80 MPH freight whacks about 90 minutes off a freight shipment

Not even that much. When people talk about speed ups, they tend to forget about alignment issues. Unless you spend the megabucks necessary to improve curvature adn grades the increased maximum speed will not be available throughout.

Mind you, tracks that can handle 70 MPH freight can often also handle 90 MPH passenger trains (it's only signal issues that cap stuff off at 79 MPH)

True

and might well be able to handle stuff in the 100-110 MPH range as well without too much trouble as long as there's enough capacity to allow passing.

Once you get above 90 mph you are moving from FRA Class 5 to FRA Class 6 requirements, which means that there are a number of other FRA requirements that come into play, none of which would be of any benenfit to 70 nph freight operation. These additional requirements explain the resounding lack of enthusiasm that the various railroad companies have with any talk about passenger train operations above 90 mph.

I know there's a difference on the Class 5/6 requirements, though I'm not sure what they are...I know some of it involves crossing protections and some presumably involves signaling, so could I either get a brief on this or get directed to an understandable source (I'm assuming that FRA documentation may be a bit too technical) on the matter? For example, doesn't total separation of freight and passenger operations only kick in past 110 MPH?

I'd also assumed that at least part of the problem is that while a passenger train might end up going 90 MPH, in general, stop schedules would prevent that train from averaging more than about 70-75 MPH...which would only be marginally faster than a fast, non-stop freight train on a good alignment. The added 10-15 MPH (to somewhere in the 80s) that hiking the top speed to 110 MPH turns a 5-10 MPH difference into something around 20 MPH...which might just be a bigger pain to work around.

 

[George Harris]

I know there's a difference on the Class 5/6 requirements, though I'm not sure what they are...I know some of it involves crossing protections and some presumably involves signaling, so could I either get a brief on this or get directed to an understandable source (I'm assuming that FRA documentation may be a bit too technical) on the matter? For example, doesn't total separation of freight and passenger operations only kick in past 110 MPH?

OK, but later.

 

[AlanB]

For example, doesn't total separation of freight and passenger operations only kick in past 110 MPH?

Off the top of my head, I'm not sure at what speed if any there must be a total separation of freight & pax ops, but it's clearly not 110 MPH. Freight trains operate on the NEC with Acela going 150 MPH up in RI.

Now the freight companies are all saying that the don't want to allow passenger speeds faster than X, because it complicates their lives. CSX seems to have decided that their limit is 90 MPH; although it is unclear if that's their real limit or just a talking point for wanting a lot more money to allow for higher. UP on the other hand is perfectly happy with the max speed that Amtrak's diesels can haul at, which is 110 MPH.

Finally, in addition to what George may post, you may find this to be a bit of a help with things. It gives one a clear list of what class track allows what speeds.

Some more light reading here.

 

[Anderson]

For example, doesn't total separation of freight and passenger operations only kick in past 110 MPH?

Off the top of my head, I'm not sure at what speed if any there must be a total separation of freight & pax ops, but it's clearly not 110 MPH. Freight trains operate on the NEC with Acela going 150 MPH up in RI.

Now the freight companies are all saying that the don't want to allow passenger speeds faster than X, because it complicates their lives. CSX seems to have decided that their limit is 90 MPH; although it is unclear if that's their real limit or just a talking point for wanting a lot more money to allow for higher. UP on the other hand is perfectly happy with the max speed that Amtrak's diesels can haul at, which is 110 MPH.

Finally, in addition to what George may post, you may find this to be a bit of a help with things. It gives one a clear list of what class track allows what speeds.

Some more light reading here.

I'm familiar with the 90/110 fight going on up in New York. In UP's case...UP? Being flexible on something involving passenger traffic? Say it isn't so! In CSX's case, their rumblings regarding SEHSR do seem to indicate some flexibility on the 90 MPH cap, at least as far as I can tell.

All jokes at UP's expense aside, isn't there at least time separation on those NEC segments where 150 MPH happens? i.e. We're not likely to see the Acela blowing past a moving freight train?

 

[AlanB]

All jokes at UP's expense aside, isn't there at least time separation on those NEC segments where 150 MPH happens? i.e. We're not likely to see the Acela blowing past a moving freight train?

Don't know if I was actually in one of the 150 MPH sections, or for that matter there is at least one 150 MPH section where there is a third track for the freights just south of Providence; but I've been on plenty of Acelas to Boston and certainly over 100 MPH with freight moving on an adjacent track.

 

[jis]

There is no temporal separation requirement between Tier II trains like Acelas and freight. Only requirement is ACSES i.e. PTC. That is part of the reason that Tier II requires such additional weight for the added buff strength. There will be ROW separation requirements between Tier III trains and all other trains above 125mph, according to current proposals for the new Tier III requirements.

To elaborate, Tier II equipment is allowed to operate at upto 150/160mph other conditions permitting, and is allowed to commingle with all FRA compliant traffic at upto 150/160mph. Beyond that requires Tier III equipment and rules. Tier III equipment would be allowed to operate at a maximum speed of 125mph in commingled traffic. On dedicated trackage where there are no Tier I and Tier II equipment present, Tier III equipment would be allowed to operate at upto 220mph, or course track and other conditions permitting.

The temporal separation rules apply when equipment that does not comply with Tier I operates on FRA governed lines under a waiver, e.g. RiverLINE DMUs on FRA governed Bordentown secondary. That is done by temporally separating Tier I equipment operations from non-copliant operations. But even there parallel operation of the two on parallel unconnected trackage is allowed. Eventually it is likely that with PTC with some additional caveats, mixing might be allowed there too.

There is a short segment controlled by a single control point where such is already allowed as an experimental measure under a special waiver.

George will provide the details later perhaps, but roughly speaking, for 110mph considerable additional work needs to be done to upgrade grade crossings, and also inspection and maintenance schedules for tracks become much more stringent. For 125mph, for all practical purposes all grade crossings have to be removed. Beyond 125 something like ACSES is mandatory.

All jokes at UP's expense aside, isn't there at least time separation on those NEC segments where 150 MPH happens? i.e. We're not likely to see the Acela blowing past a moving freight train?

There is nothing in regulations that would prevent such. As a matter of normal practice it is unusual for freight trains to operate during heavier traffic daylight hours. However, between New Brunswick and Trenton it is not at all unusual to see Acelas blow by freights at 135, and that is not likely to change when speeds get bumped up to 150/160.