Talgos mothballed?

[Eric S]

and Walker (hastilly cancelling the MKE-MSN extension).

Just to be clear, Governor Walker never cancelled the MKE-MSN extension.

Yes, he ran on that platform that he would cancel it and no doubt given the chance he probably would have cancelled it. But the reality is that he actually failed to deliver on his campaign promise to cancel the extension. He never got the chance to cancel things. The Fed withdrew the offer before Mr. Walker was ever sworn in to office; so again, he actually never cancelled the extension, the Fed did.

You're right, of course. In my haste, I did not state that accurately. Walker, as candidate and governor-elect, chose to blast all rail spending as wasteful, rather than making any attempt to work with the feds. The feds withdrew the funding for the MKE-MSN extenion and, later as governor, Walker applied for funding for upgrades to the existing CHI-MKE service. Given Walker's ridiculous anti-rail comments and campaigning before taking office, it is not exactly surprising that the feds did not see him and WisDOT as reliable partners anymore.

Anyway, regarding the current Talgo situation, I maintain that it is a problem caused by Doyle and worsened by Walker.

 

[afigg]

I like these plans, and wish that this could have happend. However, it's far too late. In terms of California's cars, I know this is off-topic, but I was wondering what will be used for the Coast Daylight. The only current road(rail)block in the way of getting this train started is lack of two-story eqipment, which Caltrans much prefers over single-level. In the plans Caltrans and Illinois put out on the bi-level order, why were cars for the Coast Daylight not included in the order? What is Caltrans planning on using?

Don't count on a Coast Daylight.

This is off-topic for this thread, but a Coast Daylight would obviously use Surfliner cars, once enough new bi-level cars are available. Looking it up, California has $3 million of HSIPR funds to write formal Service Development Plans for the Surfliner, San Joaquin, and Coast Daylight corridors. As the lead state on the order for 130 corridor bi-levels with 42 currently funded, all CA has to do is order another 12+ cars to have enough equipment to run a Coast Daylight if the 42 additional cars are not enough. Not that expensive given the 100s of millions being spent on the LOSSAN and other corridors. A Coast Daylight is pretty much just an extension of a Surfliner to San Francisco. The service won't happen until enough new Surfliners are available and the track & station upgrades are completed, but in 4 years or so, could start.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

With Wisconsin only having two Talgo trainsets, the only place for them is in the Northwest. The cost of 'setting up shop' for maintenance and the need for a spare trainset - unless one of the two sets is held in reserve - make them unusable anywhere else.

 

[EMDF9A]

A random thought.... Washington State could try to negotiate with BNSF to run a TALGO service from Seattle to Spokane, perhaps over Stampede Pass in the meantime?

Interesting idea. I did a google search and came across articles on proposals for a Seattle-Portland-Boise ID corridor service. Of course, crossing 3 states makes it more difficult to pull off.

Seattle to Spokane over either BNSF route has the advantage of connecting 2 large metro areas in the same state. Spokane is not that small in population. I did not realize it was that big, with a city population of 209K, county of 471K. There have to be politicians and people in Spokane who would like a daytime corridor train service. But I get the impression that this has not been pushed for or extensively studied, quite likely because of the capacity issues on the BNSF lines. The focus has been on the Cascades corridor.

If a leading state politician were to propose acquiring the WI Talgos to provide service from Seattle to Spokane or Boise, there would have to be feasibility studies, then engineering and design studies, multiple cycles of political & public debate, then agreements reached with BNSF if they would be willing to go along, then implementation and start-up efforts before Seattle to Spokane service might begin. How many years would that take?

I would love to a SEA/YAK/SPK Talgo route. It would make sense to base then in Seattle as all the other Talgos are there. I believe there would be a market for a daytime trip in each direction, and you cant tell me BNSF would have issues with capacity. The NP Stampede line has no more than a few trains a day if that. There perhaps would be some issue Pasco/Spokane., but I'm not familiar enough with the traffic on that line and if it would cause issues to add 2 trains a day. What I can see is staffing stations in Ellensburgh & Yakima. Thats where there will be a cost, as there is no current AMTRAK service in these locations.

 

[Anderson]

It's possible that BNSF might have a claim on an upgrade or two to the tracks (maybe some help with PTC, maybe fixing a curve somewhere, maybe a passing siding somewhere), particularly if there was some long-term plan for more frequent service. But at the very least, it should be a "friendly" bid in the vein of the Norfolk extension, rather than a "hostile" bid like UP and the Sunset.

 

[Eric S]

I want to say that maybe 10ish years ago there was a study on the WSDOT website about just such a service (Talgo SEA-SPK over Stampede Pass). I haven't been able to find it online, though, in recent years. (Of course, maybe I am mistaken, and no such study/report existed.)

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

Talgo technology, which is brilliant, makes sense in 3 places: curvy track (the pendular cars "lean into" the curves, increasing passenger comfort and potentially allowing for higher speeds), bad track (independent wheel suspension makes the trains less subject to a rough ride), and routes where Amtrak can gain a benefit from a light footprint train that inflicts minimal damage on the track (so, on its own track, or on track where the operating railroad charges by per-axle weight — I don't think any railroad does this in the US).

The oh-so-obvious route for the Talgos, apart from the Cascades (to which they are well-suited) is the Vermonter, where all three conditions are met. The Adirondack is another. So are the Carolinian, the Pennsylvanian, probably even the Lynchburger.

Flat "I" states are not the best place for these trains, and it was always a mistake to buy them for WI. They would provide some benefit on a daylight schedule to Minneapolis (track northwest of Milwaukee has some curves), but would have provided very little on lines between Chicago, Milwaukee and Madison.

Yes, wherever you put them, some specialized maintenance is required, usually provided by Talgo itself. But a $50 million maintenance facility is not. Talgos operate on a premier overnight sleeper service in Kazakstan. Here's betting that they didn't build a $50 million maintenance facility to take care of those first two sets. But they have been sufficiently successful that the Kazaks just placed a follow-on order for 420 more coaches.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/talgo-to-renew-kazakh-inter-city-train-fleet.html

So, wherever they go, let's hope that they are used properly, enjoy a long service life, and benefit many people! They are clever trains.

 

[rtabern]

Does it make sense for the State of Illinois to lease them for the short term? Perhaps the Quincy line or the Carbonedale line? I'm not sure how many train sets those require, but I just hate to see perfectly good equipment be wasted, when they could be out collecting revenue. This, when Amtrak is still short equipment and seeing how the bi-levels are still a few years away for the Midwest.

If anything, these sets need to be used somewhere. I hope Talgo is able to sue the State of Wisconsin. Not that I wish Wisconsin taxpayers anymore burden from Gov. Walkers shenanigans of this whole train deal.

I like saxman's idea... give them to Illinois and put them on the #380-383 trains to Quincy... as those trains are almost always not "sold out".

However, they DON'T belong on the Hiawatha line with increasing gas prices and increasing ridership. At first, living in suburban Milwaukee, I was excited that we would be getting the Talgos... however... that was until a friend who works for Amtrak in Chicago pointed out to me that there would actually be fewer seats on the Talgos than with the Amfleets/Horizons... and no extra cars could be added to the Talgo trains. There have been quite a few times recently that there has been "standing room only" on the Hiawatha, esp the 5:08PM CHI depature. You are not going to get people to keep taking the train if they have to stand for 85 miles.

Looks wise... I am sure the interior of the Talgos and the Bistro car would be nice... but not at the cost of losing seats.

I say... keep the Horizons/Amfleets, but just add a cafe car/business class option. It actually wouldn't cost any more to add a cafe/business car as Amtrak is already paying an LSA to push a cart full of snacks down the aisle. Amtrak would make more if they sold business class seats. I know I would probably always go BC on the Hiawatha if it was only an extra $8-10.

 

[afigg]

The oh-so-obvious route for the Talgos, apart from the Cascades (to which they are well-suited) is the Vermonter, where all three conditions are met. The Adirondack is another. So are the Carolinian, the Pennsylvanian, probably even the Lynchburger.

The show stopper problem with all the eastern routes are the high level platforms. The Vermonter will in 4-5 years encounter high level platforms at every station from WAS to Springfield MA once the station and track upgrades are complete on the NHV-SPG line. The Adirondack, Carolinian, Pennsylvanian all terminate at NYP which means no go for the Talgos.

 

[CHamilton]

I want to say that maybe 10ish years ago there was a study on the WSDOT website about just such a service (Talgo SEA-SPK over Stampede Pass). I haven't been able to find it online, though, in recent years. (Of course, maybe I am mistaken, and no such study/report existed.)

Here's a post from the Seattle Transit Blog that discusses the study you mention, with a link to the actual document. http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/10/21/go-big-on-rail/

 

[Trogdor]

Talgo technology, which is brilliant, makes sense in 3 places:

...

bad track (independent wheel suspension makes the trains less subject to a rough ride)

I guess it depends on the track. Back when the Cascades had a bunch of jointed rail north of the US/Canada border, the Talgo ride was absolutely horrible on otherwise normal jointed rail (the trains weren't even going very fast through there).

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

Talgo technology, which is brilliant, makes sense in 3 places:

...

bad track (independent wheel suspension makes the trains less subject to a rough ride)

I guess it depends on the track. Back when the Cascades had a bunch of jointed rail north of the US/Canada border, the Talgo ride was absolutely horrible on otherwise normal jointed rail (the trains weren't even going very fast through there).

Paradoxically, they do better at higher speeds. On the Madrid - Paris overnight service, the worst section of the ride is the slowest, from Burgos to San Sebastian (roughly). The ride is much smoother on the higher-speed (but less well-maintained) line south of Burgos.

Also, if the joints in the rail are perfectly opposite, the independent suspension loses its advantage.

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

The oh-so-obvious route for the Talgos, apart from the Cascades (to which they are well-suited) is the Vermonter, where all three conditions are met. The Adirondack is another. So are the Carolinian, the Pennsylvanian, probably even the Lynchburger.

The show stopper problem with all the eastern routes are the high level platforms. The Vermonter will in 4-5 years encounter high level platforms at every station from WAS to Springfield MA once the station and track upgrades are complete on the NHV-SPG line. The Adirondack, Carolinian, Pennsylvanian all terminate at NYP which means no go for the Talgos.

Hmmm. Hadn't thought of that. So much for my "big picture" cleverness. Red-faced.

Not solvable (with up ramps, for instance)? Talgos face fairly high-level platforms on routes around Europe... but I don't know how they compare to the NEC.

Well, the Piedmont, then. Or the "Coast Daylight?"

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Two many track upgrades necessary on the Pasco line, better off doing corridor on current EB line SEA-SPK. Inconvienient schedules on the EB.

 

[WICT106]

I concur with alfgg's comments, here. If Walker chooses to continue his anti-rail sentiments, the sets ought to be sent to OR & WA, and Badgers should go and purchase some additional cars to the new Midwest coach order. If you read the comments at the MILW Journal's website, this decision is quite unpopular. It also goes without typing that I condemn this decision, just as I condemn the results of Walker's actions re: the MSN extension of the Hiawatha. Walker's decisions have cost WI taxpayers almost $ 1 billion, so far. :angry2: :angry2:

 

[Trogdor]

Hmmm. Hadn't thought of that. So much for my "big picture" cleverness. Red-faced.

Not solvable (with up ramps, for instance)? Talgos face fairly high-level platforms on routes around Europe... but I don't know how they compare to the NEC.

No, can't work. The high-level platforms are much higher than floor height for a Talgo, and are right next to the car (they are intended for level boarding). There would simply be no room for the passenger to squeeze out of the train and onto the platform.

It would be similar to someone trying to exit from a basement to a sidewalk using the basement windows that are towards the ceiling.

But, regardless of the platform modifications that could (or couldn't) be made, the simple fact remains that these two Talgo trainsets will not see service anywhere in the United States if they don't wind up on the Cascades (unless Wisconsin changes their mind). Nobody else in the country is interested in Talgo trains. Nobody else wants to spend $50-75 million to build a maintenance facility dedicated to those trainsets, plus $10+ million/year in maintenance costs.

I really don't see how anyone could think running these trains in Hiawatha service would be a good idea. If it's true that the additional maintenance cost of these trains is $10 million per year (vs. what it would cost the state to use existing Amfleet/Horizon equipment), then you're talking about increasing the cost of the route by 50%, and with the lower seating capacity, your revenue on the peak trains would likely go down (with people deciding it's not worth it to stand on a crowded train for an hour and a half).

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

Hmmm. Hadn't thought of that. So much for my "big picture" cleverness. Red-faced.

Not solvable (with up ramps, for instance)? Talgos face fairly high-level platforms on routes around Europe... but I don't know how they compare to the NEC.

No, can't work. The high-level platforms are much higher than floor height for a Talgo, and are right next to the car (they are intended for level boarding). There would simply be no room for the passenger to squeeze out of the train and onto the platform.

It would be similar to someone trying to exit from a basement to a sidewalk using the basement windows that are towards the ceiling.

But, regardless of the platform modifications that could (or couldn't) be made, the simple fact remains that these two Talgo trainsets will not see service anywhere in the United States if they don't wind up on the Cascades (unless Wisconsin changes their mind). Nobody else in the country is interested in Talgo trains. Nobody else wants to spend $50-75 million to build a maintenance facility dedicated to those trainsets, plus $10+ million/year in maintenance costs.

I really don't see how anyone could think running these trains in Hiawatha service would be a good idea. If it's true that the additional maintenance cost of these trains is $10 million per year (vs. what it would cost the state to use existing Amfleet/Horizon equipment), then you're talking about increasing the cost of the route by 50%, and with the lower seating capacity, your revenue on the peak trains would likely go down (with people deciding it's not worth it to stand on a crowded train for an hour and a half).

Well, you've made an excellent point re the platform height: no service anywhere north of DC in the NEC.

But I think the maintenance issue is overplayed. Per my original post:

...wherever you put them, some specialized maintenance is required, usually provided by Talgo itself. But a $50 million maintenance facility is not. Talgos operate on a premier overnight sleeper service in Kazakstan. Here's betting that they didn't build a $50 million maintenance facility to take care of those first two sets. But they have been sufficiently successful that the Kazaks just placed a follow-on order for 420 more coaches.

http://www.railwayga...rain-fleet.html

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

This week's NARP bulletin chimes in on the Talgo maintenance costs:

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_750/

I'm telling you: that one is a red herring!

 

[Trogdor]

This week's NARP bulletin chimes in on the Talgo maintenance costs:

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_750/

I'm telling you: that one is a red herring!

No it's not. The NARP Hotline disputes nothing about the maintenance costs. All they mention is that you save $600,000 in fuel costs and $740,000 in storage costs.

So, that's $1.3 million in costs to park the Talgos, vs. $10 million in costs to run them. So, you're still $8.7 million in the hole.

As for "attractiveness of the new trains generating more revenue," well, we'll ask the passengers on 330 and 339 how attractive those new trains are when 23 more people have to stand than currently do.

 

[NE933]

So how did we get ino this latest moronic mess, and how to get out? Place them in a trailer park and sell them as futuristic homes? Waterproof the doorways and drop thm in the ocean so that scientists can usee them for underground laboratories? Deliberately crash a dozen at Pueblo to see if thy really are strong enough to withstand a biggie?

Or have a zoo relocate some animals inside and call the project "Noah 's Talgo?"

 

[Trogdor]

Deliberately crash a dozen at Pueblo to see if thy really are strong enough to withstand a biggie?

Might be onto something there. Maybe Wisconsin sells them to a Hollywood studio that wants to film a movie that includes a train-wreck scene.

 

[Trogdor]

...wherever you put them, some specialized maintenance is required, usually provided by Talgo itself. But a $50 million maintenance facility is not. Talgos operate on a premier overnight sleeper service in Kazakstan. Here's betting that they didn't build a $50 million maintenance facility to take care of those first two sets. But they have been sufficiently successful that the Kazaks just placed a follow-on order for 420 more coaches.

http://www.railwayga...rain-fleet.html

A few questions that come to mind.

First, what differences are there between the Talgos bought for Kazakhstan and those being built in Milwaukee (differences that may alter the cost of maintenance)?

Second, what are the maintenance standards in Kazakhstan vs. those here?

Third, what are the relative costs (including labor) of maintaining trains in Kazakhstan compared to maintaining trains in Wisconsin?

Running the numbers, Wisconsin spent $72 million to buy (I think) 31 cars (I believe there were going to be 14 cars per trainset, plus 3 spares, could be off by a car or two). That amounts to $2.3 million per car. The Kazakhstan order was worth 300 million Euro, according to that article. At today's exchange rates, that would be $390 million. That amounts to less than $1 million per car.

So, saying that Kazakhstan didn't build a $50 million maintenance base is kind of disingenuous because I doubt you could build a $50 million anything in Kazakhstan (not literally, but you get my point, things are a lot cheaper over there).

The simple fact is that things cost a heck of a lot more to build here than many other parts of the world, for a number of reasons.

Milwaukee's train station cost over $16 million to renovate, and there wasn't even a new building built. They just extended the facade of the existing structure and redecorated the interior. So, to build a brand new building, and one that needs to be able to accommodate the maintenance of two trains, it's not out of the question to believe a $50+ million price tag.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Maybe Wisconsin sells them to a Hollywood studio that wants to film a movie that includes a train-wreck scene.

Is it just me, or does it seem awfully fitting for America to finally get around to building one of the most advanced and expensive conventional speed passenger trains only to end up destroying it before it carries even one single passenger?

 

[George Harris]

Not solvable (with up ramps, for instance)? Talgos face fairly high-level platforms on routes around Europe... but I don't know how they compare to the NEC.

Only the British have car floor height platforms. The rest of Europe it is sort of mid height. There are a couple of steps up still remaining. A little digging should get the specifics, but I am not going to do it in the middle of the night. There is a whole set of European documents called the Technical Specifications for Interoperability, or simply the TSI's, that covers this stuff, and I think has a fairly specific range of dimensions for acceptable platform heights and offsets that apply to EU countries.

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

This week's NARP bulletin chimes in on the Talgo maintenance costs:

http://www.narprail....re/hotline_750/

I'm telling you: that one is a red herring!

No it's not. The NARP Hotline disputes nothing about the maintenance costs. All they mention is that you save $600,000 in fuel costs and $740,000 in storage costs.

So, that's $1.3 million in costs to park the Talgos, vs. $10 million in costs to run them. So, you're still $8.7 million in the hole.

As for "attractiveness of the new trains generating more revenue," well, we'll ask the passengers on 330 and 339 how attractive those new trains are when 23 more people have to stand than currently do.

Here is the part I was thinking of. Bold print added for emphasis.

Nora Friend, a senior executive at Talgo, responded that they could use the manufacturing plant in Milwaukee as a temporary maintenance site, while saying the company could only give the state until 2014 to come up with a permanent solution. In fact, the Talgo/Wisconsin contract says maintenance can be done in the existing Talgo facility in Milwaukee indefinitely. This week’s vote was to deny funds for the new, permanent facility, but not to deny maintenance. Under the contract, if the state says it does not have funds to maintain Talgo equipment, it may not maintain other equipment.

​

...

​

Citing WisDOT figures, Republican legislators say the state can save $10 million a year by mothballing the trains and continuing to use the 20- and 30-year old Amtrak cars currently in service.

​

Friend says the comparative figures presented by WisDOT are wrong. They don’t take into account the $600,000 a year [$300,000 per train set] the state would save by using the lighter, more efficient Talgo equipment; the $740,000 a year the state would have to pay to store the new trains; or the inevitable of eventually replacing Amtrak’s aging equipment. In addition, Friend told NARP that the substantial ridership increase resulting from the attractiveness of the new trains would produce significant additional revenues not reflected in the above figures.

​

If you buy into the ridership increase business, the Talgo fixed capacity is a downer (though additional cars could be added, they could only be manufactured in Europe — or in Kazakhstan). But there is no question that the trains would be a comfort improvement. Perhaps scope for additional frequencies? Or for an "All-Reserved" departure or two, marketed as an added comfort to passengers who sometimes find themselves standing?