posted
In today's print copy of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Transportation Economics & Management Systems (TEMS), a passenger rail planning firm, presented a study which showed that for $362.6 million we could have 110 mph service to Duluth with 8 daily trains. Both MN US Senators and Trans Chair Oberstar are backing the project which could get 80% funding from the FRA. Upgrade of the BNSF line, formerly used by Amtrak, would allow service to begin in 2012 with estimated ridership of 3,000/day.
It was noted that TEMS often comes to a negative conclusion for passenger rail, including a study made on KC-Denver. But this one was positive. Amtrak was not mentioned in the article.
Whoopie! Someday we may no longer be a one train town.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But the biggest benefactor could be Hinckley, the casino city of 1,600 that the study says could see as much as $340 million in new development around its station."
MSP to Deluth is something like 150 miles, so we're are paying $2 million per mile to make it more convienent for people to throw their money away.
Isn't there some clown in politics with major clout from this place? If it does these people this much good, let them pay for it.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: "But the biggest benefactor could be Hinckley, the casino city of 1,600 that the study says could see as much as $340 million in new development around its station."
MSP to Deluth is something like 150 miles, so we're are paying $2 million per mile to make it more convienent for people to throw their money away.
Isn't there some clown in politics with major clout from this place? If it does these people this much good, let them pay for it.
Representative Oberstar, the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, is from Minnesota. However, I don't know if Hinckley is in his district.
Both of Minnesota's Senators are backing this, so most likely they're either already getting big donations from the casino lobby or they're hoping to get them. Posts: 100 | From: Kernersville, NC | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meanwhile, those of us who want to go MSP- or SCD - Madison, WI still have to content ourselves with taxi connections at Columbus, or bus connections. If you get your funding, can we get our funding as well to fix up the tracks both in and out of Madison ?
-------------------- "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one corner of the Earth all one's life." Posts: 506 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CG96: Meanwhile, those of us who want to go MSP- or SCD - Madison, WI still have to content ourselves with taxi connections at Columbus, or bus connections. If you get your funding, can we get our funding as well to fix up the tracks both in and out of Madison ?
Serving Madison as an extension of the Chicago-Milwaukee service would be a snap - just fix up the tracks on the branch off the mainline at Watertown into Madison. Service three or four trips a day would be an absolute smash.....particularly with the new Milwaukee Airport Station.
Maybe all they need to put it over the top is a casino in Sun Prairie.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As one who has no interest in gambling, has never bought a lottery ticket, and considers Las Vegas to be one of the most boring cities in the west, I would have to say that describing this proposal as pork relating to gambling industry contributions is a bit off target.
When Amtrak ran MSP-Duluth, there was no major casino and the train was extremely full in all but the extreme winter months. The train would now serve a huge population of commuters who prefer to live in urban environment and have settled around Hinckley. Several people I work with live close to Hinckley and start their drive at 5am, and they really want a train!
Duluth is the gateway to the most scenic tourist and recreation area in Minnesota, Lake Superior's North Shore and the Boundary Waters Wilderness, and is an area badly in need of tourist dollars. Many have just given up going that direction because Interstate 35 is too congested on weekends.
I do not know if Rep. Oberstar's district includes Hinckley, but it does include Duluth and the North Shore. He was responsible for the original Amtrak route which was eventually lost to state budget cutting as a 403b train. He is also a strong supporter of rail trails and has been instrumental in turning most of the old Northern Pacific line to Duluth into a trail.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A high speed rail is not a commuter service.
A commuter service can run on the same tracks or parallel tracks (they do both in the northeast) but you do not have to spend megamillions to develop a high speed line in order to do commuter service. Nashville just spent something like $32 million to put commuter serivce on a 32 mile line east of the city, and most of that was spent on getting a 25 mph branch line up to a 60 mph railroad.
If the demand is there, spend what it takes to get the line up to 79 mph and put on something like 3 to 4 trains a day. If they get decent ridership, then think about speeding it up. On a national scale to get the most for your transportation dollar, the speed up money should be spent on lines that have already proven their need by the ridership on their 79 mph maximum trains, for example, Raleigh to Charlotte NC, Washington DC - Richmond VA - Portsmouth/Norfolk, Chicago to St. Louis to Kansas City, any of the three multi-train lines in California, etc.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care what you say! I want my new toy! With a dome car and a ride in the engine!
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by notelvis: Serving Madison as an extension of the Chicago-Milwaukee service would be a snap - just fix up the tracks on the branch off the mainline at Watertown into Madison. Service three or four trips a day would be an absolute smash.....particularly with the new Milwaukee Airport Station.
Maybe all they need to put it over the top is a casino in Sun Prairie. [/QB]
Yes but the main issue remains who will produce the funding required to upgrade the Portage - Madison - Watertown tracks from their current status of FRA class 1 (perhaps Class 2) to Class 4, 5, or 6. Amtrak refuses to run regularly scheduled service on track that is Class 3 or lower.
There is the issue of installation of cab signals or automatic train stop or train control over the route segment . Even with PTC or CBTC, the costs of installation and maintenance can be quite large. Other forum members who have knowledge in the civil engineering field can discuss these aspects in greater detail.
The issues of track upgrades, maintenance, cab signals / ATS / ATC / PTC / CBTC remain similar no matter which section of track is under discussion. For service along the entire route of MKE - Madison - St. Paul - Duluth /Superior to be competitive time-wise with driving, the maximum speed will have to be to Class 6 standards (110 mph).
-------------------- "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one corner of the Earth all one's life." Posts: 506 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Nashville just spent something like $32 million to put commuter serivce on a 32 mile line east of the city, and most of that was spent on getting a 25 mph branch line up to a 60 mph railroad. ...spend what it takes to get the line up to 79 mph
I like the 79 mph idea, because it seems like a more realistic way to start out, and less of a target for those who are critical of spending money on passenger rail.
On the other hand, the only reason it's such a big deal to increase the speed to 100 mph or more is the way things are currently set up as far as requirements to improve grade crossings and signaling.
Posts: 144 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by notelvis: Serving Madison as an extension of the Chicago-Milwaukee service would be a snap - just fix up the tracks on the branch off the mainline at Watertown into Madison. Service three or four trips a day would be an absolute smash.....particularly with the new Milwaukee Airport Station.
Maybe all they need to put it over the top is a casino in Sun Prairie.
Yes but the main issue remains who will produce the funding required to upgrade the Portage - Madison - Watertown tracks from their current status of FRA class 1 (perhaps Class 2) to Class 4, 5, or 6. Amtrak refuses to run regularly scheduled service on track that is Class 3 or lower.
I don't think it would be too far from reality. Someone in the WI DOT saw fit to rebuild the MKE Amtrak station into the the new Intermodal station, and the Milwaukee Airport station is still pretty new. A lot of DOT money has gone to Amtrak in the last few years. Building out the line to Madison might not be all that hard of a sell, if you can show that the ridership will be there of course.
-------------------- Chuck
“Adventure is just bad planning.” - Roald Amundsen Posts: 80 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The corridor that needs 110 mph trains is MSP to Chicago. A once a day east/west long distance train is an embarrasment. There are over 15 million people living in MSP, Milwaukee, and Chicago. With how many colleges on the route? Over a dozen? There should be at least 4 daily round trips.
Posts: 18 | From: Eagan, MN | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
FRA Track Classes are for track conditions. 1 is slowest. 79 mph is related to signal and train control requirements. Simply put, if a line has no signals, passenger trains are not allowed to run 60 mph or faster and freight trains are not allowed to run 50 mph or faster, regardless of how good the track is. That is why you will see lines with speed limits of 59 mph for passengers and 49 mph for freight trains. The route of the Sunset Ltd east between Flomaton AL and Tallahassee FL is an example of that. Unless the the signal system includes cab signals or some form of automatic train stop or automatic train control, trains are not allowed to run 80 mph or faster. Since these systems are quite expensive that is why most main lines in the US do not have speed limits above 79 mph. The 80 mph limitation applies to all trains, that is why you can have speed limits of 79 mph for passenger trains and 70 mph for freight trains. Much of the line used by the Southwest Chief across Arizona and New Mexico is equipped with ATS and has a passenger train speed limit of 90 mph.
Back to track class conditions: The FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) has a set of safety requirements for track that include such stuff as deviations from alignment, level, crosslevel, rail conditions, tie conditions, etc. There are also requirements for inspection frequencies. If you look at them you will see that a track can be really bad in appearance and rough riding and still be safe at low speeds.
Many times you will see this referred to as 49 CFR Part 213. This is its reference in the Code. "CFR" is the Code of Federal Regulations" Part 213 is titled Track Safety Standards, and has several subsections.
Subpart A, paragraph 213.9 gives the speed limits for the various classes of tracks:
Excepted: 10 mph freight, no passenger trains allowed Class 1: 10 mph freight, 15 mph passenger Class 2: 25 mph freight, 30 mph passenger Class 3: 40 mph freight, 60 mph passenger Class 4: 60 mph freight, 80 mph passenger Class 5: 80 mph freight, 90 mph passenger
For faster speed limits, go to Subpart G:
Class 6: 110 mph Class 7: 125 mph Class 8: 160 mph Class 9: 200 mph
All the discussion in this part relates to high speed passenger train operation. Note that there is no associated freight train speed limit. The differences between these classes are mostly related to alignment and ride quality related issues. Material-wise, near perfection is required for all these high speed classes.
Much of the Northeast Corridor has speed limits of 135 mph and some up to 150 mph, so this track must always meed Class 8.
At this time there is no track class for above 200 mph. If you want to run faster than that, as California High Speed Rail proposes, then a new class with associated safety requirements will need to be developed.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Robert L: Wow, this is a good thread.
I got a question, above comment spoke of FRA Class 1,2,3,4,5,and 6. In a simplified format what is the difference between them?
I get the impression it has to do with speed allowable. Or am I missing something?
Does one Class # designate a speed of 60 mph, 79mph, 110mph, or top speed B.O.O.H. [Bat out of Hell].
Thanks in advance, for all knowledgable comments. For starters, the private railroads may set speed limits that do not exceed the following standards. Some of them have reduced speed limits in order to reduce their maintenance costs.
From the US Code of Federal Regulations:
quote: Operating Speed Limits by Class of Track
49 CFR 213.9 and 213.307
Sec. 213.9 Classes of track: operating speed limits.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and Secs. 213.57(b), 213.59(a), 213.113(a), and 213.137(b) and (c), the following maximum allowable operating speeds apply-- [In miles per hour] ------------------------------------------------------------------------For all track that meets the requirements of the following classifications of this part, the maximum speeds are as follows:
Excepted track.................... 10 N/A Class 1 track..................... 10 15 Class 2 track..................... 25 30 Class 3 track..................... 40 60 Class 4 track..................... 60 80 Class 5 track..................... 80 90 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 213.307 Class of track: operating speed limits.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and Secs. 213.329, 213.337(a) and 213.345(c), the following maximum allowable operating speeds apply:
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Over track that meets all of the The maximum allowable requirements prescribed in this subpart operating speed for trains for-- is-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Class 6 track............................ 110 m.p.h. Class 7 track............................ 125 m.p.h. Class 8 track............................ 160 m.p.h. Class 9 track............................ 200 m.p.h. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: FRA Signal Related Speed Limits
In simple words: No signals 49 mph Freight 59 mph Passenger
Block signals or TCS 79 mph Freight or Passenger
Automatic Train Stop, Automatic Train Control, or Cab signals: 80 mph or more as determined by characteristics of signal system. -------------------------------------------
From 49 United States CFR 236.0
For the speed limit for Class 6 track, under present regulations, the speed limit is 110 MPH, and cab signals have to be installed.
-------------------- "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one corner of the Earth all one's life." Posts: 506 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm: seems that two of us were working out the answer at the same time.
Note GC96's statement, the railroads may set a speed limit lower than the CFR requirements. Frequently they do. For example, 70 mph was the standard passenger train speed limit for several lines. To be able to keep it, the track must meet Class 4 requirements, but there is nothing that requires a speed limit to be raised. A track can meet class 4 for track conditions, but have a curve or series of curves that require lower speed limits.
Also worth noting, and it is in the CFR more than once, if a track does not meet ALL the requirements for a given class, it does not qualify as that class of track. There is no such thing as "almost everything" being acceptable.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
