# HSR supporters in Illinois are clueless



## Amtrak LSA (Dec 11, 2010)

Uncle Sam gave Illinois over a Billion Dollars to improve UP's rail line from Bloomington to St. Louis. The concrete ties are in and it's a nice ride, except it's only going to save about 20 minutes. That's if the other delays we encounter don't suck up that time. In reality Uncle Sam gave the UP a "bailout" as if UP's profits aren't enough. You see the UP just built a huge container yard just south of Joliet with track leads into the Joliet-St. Louis line. Soon they will be running 2 container trains in each direction coming from Mexico eventally increasing to the max 6-7 per day each way. That's not figuring in that new coal mine being built on the east side of the tracks at just north of Springfield at the Sangamon County line. What's that going to be - say a 150 car coal train! They increased the weight of the rails so that more freights will run on that line. Freights that Amtrak will take the siding for!

All this talk about HSR ignores that fact that Amtrak's equipment is just pitiful. Engines that breakdown just before leaving Union Station. Toliets that don't work. Radios that don't work. Cars that run with no heat in the winter (air in the summer). Doors that don't open on the Amfleets. Dirty rugs, seats, windows. And, all I hear is HSR as if all our current problems are taken care of.

Rail fans don't have a clue how to run a business, and neither does the government. Money needs to be spent to repair and modernize on what we have to give and show the passenger "an excellent presentation" on what Amtrak could be for their travel dollars. I'd bet the ranch HSR will never occur in this country outside the Northeast Corridor. Not even in bankrupt California.

Spend the money on what we have instead of what's just a long-shot dream!


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Dec 11, 2010)

Well we should put you in charge, you have all the answers!

BTW California is not bankrupt.


----------



## BeckysBarn (Dec 11, 2010)

Amtrak LSA said:


> Rail fans don't have a clue how to run a business...


Actually, some of us do know how to run a business - and quite successfully, too.

I will admit I don't know very much about railroads. From your statement, you believe that passenger trains in Illinois will be bogged down even more with freight traffic. Isn't there more than one rail line in Illinois? Isn't there more than one track for Joliet & St. Louis? And I'm not talking about sidings.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 11, 2010)

BeckysBarn said:


> Isn't there more than one track for Joliet & St. Louis? And I'm not talking about sidings.


Actually, the answer to this question is no. The line is basically single track (with sidings) from Joliet to Alton.


----------



## BeckysBarn (Dec 11, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> BeckysBarn said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't there more than one track for Joliet & St. Louis? And I'm not talking about sidings.
> ...


So, when the Texas Eagle goes directly from STL to CHI, due to track work, what do they use?


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 12, 2010)

BeckysBarn said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > BeckysBarn said:
> ...


A route that does not operate through Joliet.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 12, 2010)

Another drive by posting by a self appointed expert.


----------



## BeckysBarn (Dec 12, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> A route that does not operate through Joliet.


See, told ya I didn't know much about railroads. But now I know a little more. Thanks.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Dec 12, 2010)

BeckysBarn said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > BeckysBarn said:
> ...


A single track route through essentially nowhere. The "big town" is Villa Grove. It was interesting in some ways to run down what is really just a ramblin' country railroad. I know I know its really UP and pretty well maintained but thats the vibe I got from it.

If your interested you can see my pictures here

Credit is due to Trogdor told me it would be a shame to miss the detour, and because of a late Lakeshore Limited I was able to join him for what became a very memorable and interesting trip.


----------



## Grandpa D (Dec 12, 2010)

Here's the TE HSR detour in Google Maps.

Amtrak HSR Detour

I had my GPS running a couple of months ago.


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 12, 2010)

The OP does raise some valid concerns. I know for a fact about that new yard south of Joliet. I saw it on recent trips. I also have seen news articles a and posts discussing UP's plan to increase freight traffic on this line. Since it is single track with passing sidings currently, then just upgrading the main track with out increasing and improving the number of sidings is not going to make much of a difference. I know IL just got an additional 43 million, but I read some place else that this just completes the original request that IL made to the federal government. I am not sure how the original plans address the need for improved sidings. Also, I know that there is supposed to be a study to double track the line, and double tracking it will be a separate round of funding. So in summary, I can understand the OP's concerns.

On my ride to St. Louis in early November to ride on the rebuilt trackage, one of the Amtrak employees expressed similar concerns. This person was a male, and unlikely to be the op. So I suspect that some more Amtrak employees might have similar frustrations.

We all know the poor condition of the equipment used in the midwest service trains. And that there is no immediate solution to this issue. So I can understand the OP's point of view. What I don't understand is the negative, sarcastic attitudes directed at rail fans. I don't think railfans directly created this problem. Some have rather pie in the sky solutions, but I have not seen that in regard to the CHI-STL line.

What concerns me that the future funding needed to complete the double tracking and order new equipment may not materialize.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 13, 2010)

Grandpa D said:


> Here's the TE HSR detour in Google Maps.
> 
> Amtrak HSR Detour
> 
> I had my GPS running a couple of months ago.


This is the ex Chicago and Eastern Illinois. The first 82 miles out of Chicago to Woodlawn Junction is double track, the remainder single. The C&EI was an upside down Y in shape. The western leg of the Y, that used by the Texas Eagle was regarded as the secondary line. The main line went more directly south to Evansville, Indiana, and was the route of the Gerogian, Humming Bird, Dixie Flagler, Dixie Flyer, all of which were through trains to points south.

The western leg lost passenger service early, as it was third out of three major routes to St. Louis. The premier route was the Alton, later part of the GM&O, which is the line being upgraded. The other was the Illinois Central, which is now mostly abandoned south of Springfield.


----------



## Eric S (Dec 13, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> The OP does raise some valid concerns. I know for a fact about that new yard south of Joliet. I saw it on recent trips. I also have seen news articles a and posts discussing UP's plan to increase freight traffic on this line. Since it is single track with passing sidings currently, then just upgrading the main track with out increasing and improving the number of sidings is not going to make much of a difference. I know IL just got an additional 43 million, but I read some place else that this just completes the original request that IL made to the federal government. I am not sure how the original plans address the need for improved sidings. Also, I know that there is supposed to be a study to double track the line, and double tracking it will be a separate round of funding. So in summary, I can understand the OP's concerns.
> 
> On my ride to St. Louis in early November to ride on the rebuilt trackage, one of the Amtrak employees expressed similar concerns. This person was a male, and unlikely to be the op. So I suspect that some more Amtrak employees might have similar frustrations.
> 
> ...


I was under the impression that the funding IL received was going to cover both new equipment and extended/improved/new sidings. Yes, there is another proposal for complete double-track and additional new equipment. I got the impression that the OP was nearly as "clueless" about the improvements underway as he/she complained that "HSR supporters in Illinois are."

Now, I guess I need to go look up and review the projects included in the FRA-funded work.

EDIT: OK. I looked up the grant proposal that IL submitted and was approved for funding ($1.1 billion awarded in Jan. 2010 and $42 million in Dec. 2010). It includes upgrades of 13 existing sidings located at Odell, Pontiac, Ballard, Normal, McLean, Athol, Elkhart, Ridgley, Auburn, Girard, Carlinville, Shipman, and Godfrey. Also, the sidings at Elkhart, Girard, and Godfrey will be lengthened. This will result in 23.4 miles of second main track being added. The funding also covers 6 new trainsets, with each set including 2 locomotives and 5 cars. (It should probably be noted that the Chicago-Quad Cities-Iowa City project that also received funding includes similar new equipment as well.)


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 13, 2010)

Eric, thanks for the info. I was not aware of the equipment order. Do not think op was either. Since all of the money was supplied then all of thus work will happen. Can you provide a link for this info?


----------



## Eric S (Dec 13, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> Eric, thanks for the info. I was not aware of the equipment order. Do not think op was either. Since all of the money was supplied then all of thus work will happen. Can you provide a link for this info?


Here's a link to the application IL submitted. There does not seem to be a direct link on the FRA website to the applications that were funded, just a list of which ones were. This link is to one of the applications that IL submitted and that was selected for funding. It is a huge file.

http://recovery.illi..._StLouispdf.pdf

By the way, no equipment has yet been ordered. I have been curious to see when IL would order and what they end up ordering.

Also, you are correct that full double-tracking awaits further future funding.


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 13, 2010)

Eric S said:


> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> > Eric, thanks for the info. I was not aware of the equipment order. Do not think op was either. Since all of the money was supplied then all of thus work will happen. Can you provide a link for this info?
> ...


I just downloaded it. Thanks again. Now that i know the siding locations, it will be interesting to see those improvements are made. It would be great if we could get Talgo train sets for Illinois for the STL route and the route to Iowa.


----------



## Eric S (Dec 13, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Steve4031 said:
> ...


You know, with Talgo leaving Milwaukee in 2012, it will be interesting to see if any states, IL in particular, make a significant play to get them to locate there by offering to purchase equipment from them. In addition to IL, I believe WA also intends to purchase additional equipment in coming years but, other than additional Surfliner-type equipment for CA and eventual true HSR equipment for CA & FL, I am not sure any other states are looking to purchase.


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 13, 2010)

At some point Michigan will need equipment for the line to Detroit, so that would be another several train sets. It is possible, IMHO for Talgo, the state of IL, and Amtrak to set up Chicago as a Talgo hub. There would be a need for about 15 train or more to cover these routes with higher than current frequencies. This would provide a standardization for the midwest equipment. If Talgo also does the maintaniance, than Amtrak would only have to worry about the maintainance and servicing of the long distance trains in Chicago. This would be a win win.


----------



## Eric S (Dec 13, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> At some point Michigan will need equipment for the line to Detroit, so that would be another several train sets. It is possible, IMHO for Talgo, the state of IL, and Amtrak to set up Chicago as a Talgo hub. There would be a need for about 15 train or more to cover these routes with higher than current frequencies. This would provide a standardization for the midwest equipment. If Talgo also does the maintaniance, than Amtrak would only have to worry about the maintainance and servicing of the long distance trains in Chicago. This would be a win win.


Sure, MI (and MO) represent possibilities, but neither state has funding, either in hand or in the pipeline, to purchase new equipment at this point. If IL chooses Talgo for its new equipment, this I'd guess it's quite likely that Talgo would set up both a manufacturing facility and a maintenance/service facility somewhere in IL (which could service new IL trainsets and potentially the 2 WI trainsets as well), presumably in the Chicago area. And, if Talgo ends up being cost-competitive with any other options (perhaps IL joining with CA in purchasing Surfliner-type equipment), then I'd guess it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that MI and MO (and perhaps, someday, IN, MN, OH, and WI) could potentially purchase Talgo trainsets at some point in the future. (As an aside, I am not convinced, though, that Talgo equipment is necessarily the best option for a Midwest corridor trainset. I'm not convinced, either, that it is a horrible choice, just not sure it's the best one.)


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 13, 2010)

I tend to agree with you. I like talgos, but the fixed consists could be problematic at thanksgiving and other busy travel periods


----------



## George Harris (Dec 14, 2010)

Intermodal trains with a speed limit of 70 mph moving on a near flat piece of railroad are not going to do much to delay the passenger trains. UP is not hiding its intentions. Go to the map on p. 278 of the report (it runs to 880 pages, wow! I have not read it looked for the maps and exhibits only.) and you will see the Joliet Intermodal Facility shown as being at milepost 40.3. Joliet is at milepost 36.7. Union Pacific does not own the line north of Joliet. This portion is owned by Illinois Central.

A condensed history of this line is as follows: This line was for many years the Alton Railroad, and was owned by the Baltimore and Ohio. That is the reason for the B&O color position light signals that prevailed for many years. Sometime around 1940, the line was sold to the Gulf Mobile and Ohio. B&O simply wanted rid of it, as it was a north-south railroad owned by a railroad that was east-west in both geographic orientation and mindset. GM&O wanted it to get to Chicago.

An aside: The GM&O was a merger of the GM&N and M&O. Both were light volume railroads but the GM&N was well run, making money where no one else was able. The GM&N took the M&O from Southern, who was glad to be rid of it, in order to attain St. Louis.

As part of the merger, GM&O anticipated being able to sell off the Missouri side branches of the Alton, but the ICC refused to let them. Thus, the GM&O really was not able to get the Alton into good condition. The Alton was the major passenger route between Chicago and St. Louis, and the GM&O tried to run it well, but given their financial condition, bought little in the way of new equipment. GM&O so far as I know did not get into welded rail early, if at all. They also never bought and rail heavier than 115 lb/yd, and was still buing mostly 90 lb/yd rail into the 1950's. The GM&O single tracked the line, leaving relatively long passing tracks with number 20 turnouts (40 mph) on each end.

In the early 1970's, or thereabouts the Illinois Central and Gulf Mobile and Ohio merged, forming the Illinos Central Gulf. The ICRR wss the big boy in this partnership. After the merger, the ICG promply went on a major program of line abandonments and sell-offs. It appeared to the suspicious mided that ICRR took over the GM&O for the primary purpose of killing off the competition, as the abandonments and sell-offs seemed to be heavily tilted toward the ex-GM&O lines. About the only point kept by the ICG that was not served by them pre-merger was Mobile AL. As part of their sell off process, they tended to hold back access to significant sources of traffic.

The former Alton/GM&O line ws sold to form a short line, the Chicago, Missouri, and Western. HOWEVER, the portion Chicago to Joliet was held back, so the new line had no access to an connections in the Chicago area. Consequently, traffic dropped. What was left were the Amtrak trains. Thus the CM&W was trying to maintain a railroad for 79 mph that had minimal freight traffic operating on mostly 112 lb and lighter jointed rail.

*Correction* The CM&W was taken over by Southern Pacific - as part of the Cotton Belt, I think - but SP was in its own downward spiral at that time and did little if anything to improve the line or even halt its deterioration.

The lineSP was then absorbed into the Union Pacific, but when exactly I don't know, as for several years I was not paying very close attention to much of the railroad going ons in the US.

Prior to taking over the CM&WSP, the Union Pacific had absorbed the Missouri Pacific which had its own entrance into Chicago, the former C&EI, which is the line used by the Texas Eagle detour. This line is double tracked the first 82 miles out of Chicago, does make connections with most of the other lines service Chicago, and has a major yard, which is shared with CSX at Yard Center, 18 miles out of Chicago.

Thus, except for trains to the intermodal facility and traffic to/from on-line points, the line being upgraded for the passenger trains is unlikely to ever see any significant freight traffic.


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 14, 2010)

It seems like most of the improvements are happening south of Dwight for hsr. What us being done for the section between Dwight and Joliet? Thanks for the history. That explains alot.


----------



## Eric S (Dec 14, 2010)

George Harris said:


> The line was then absorbed into the Union Pacific, but when exactly I don't know, as for several years I was not paying very close attention to much of the railroad going ons in the US.
> 
> Prior to taking over the CM&W, the Union Pacific had absorbed the Missouri Pacific which had its own entrance into Chicago, the formere C&EI, which is the line used by the Texas Eagle detour. This line is double tracked the first 82 miles out of Chicago, does make connections with most of the other lines service Chicago, and has a major yard, which is shared with CSX at Yard Center, 18 miles out of Chicago.


I believe the line (between JOL & STL) was first taken over by Southern Pacific and operated as a subsidiary of theirs, SPSCL (*S*outhern *P*acific *S*t. Louis *C*hicago *L*ines, I believe). Then, when UP took over SP, UP gained control of the line.


----------



## Eric S (Dec 14, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> It seems like most of the improvements are happening south of Dwight for hsr. What us being done for the section between Dwight and Joliet? Thanks for the history. That explains alot.


Chicago-Dwight improvements are included in an unfunded application IL submitted entitled something like Chicago Hub Improvements. It also includes improvements Chicago-Rondout (_Hiawatha_ line), Chicago-Aurora (BNSF line west for CZ/SWC/Quincy/Iowa trains), Chicago-Porter (virtually all Chicago-East trains), perhaps another stretch of line as well. Actually, now that I think of it, I don't believe the application actually proposed any construction on those segments, just studies to determine what improvements would be necessary to support full build-out of services proposed in the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative.

The full double-track future phase includes triple-track on the CHI-JOL segment. And, the (partially-funded) CREATE proposal includes rail-over-rail overpasses in a number of places CHI-JOL.

Of course, you asked JOL-DWT, and I didn't really answer that specifically.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 14, 2010)

Eric S said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > The line was then absorbed into the Union Pacific, but when exactly I don't know, as for several years I was not paying very close attention to much of the railroad going ons in the US.
> ...


Yes, you are correct. I will add a line to my original post.


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 14, 2010)

Eric S said:


> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems like most of the improvements are happening south of Dwight for hsr. What us being done for the section between Dwight and Joliet? Thanks for the history. That explains alot.
> ...


You did provide new information though. I was aware of create projects and fly overs. But not the triple tracking. I would assume up would do some improvements up to where the new yard is.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 14, 2010)

Let us remember that UP is a large corporation. UP is not an evil operation hellbent on destroying passenger rail in this country; rather, UP is a typical American corporation who wants to make profits, huge profits, producing even huger bonuses. They will aim to make this profit at the expense of everyone- the people, its employees, its competitors, and the strength of the general economy. Thus, since Amtrak gets in their way a lot of the time, they want to remove Amtrak from the lines where it gets in their way.

Remove Amtrak from lines where Amtrak doesn't interfere with them at all? Why spend the time?


----------



## afigg (Dec 16, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> It seems like most of the improvements are happening south of Dwight for hsr. What us being done for the section between Dwight and Joliet? Thanks for the history. That explains alot.


From the Illinois application, of the $1.142 billion funding that Illinois applied for, $245 million is for contingencies, ie the reserve fund. If - and this is a big IF - Illinois can bring in the planned track and siding work in close to budget, they will have several hundred million to spend on other upgrade work on the corridor. Could double track part of the Alton to Dwight section, make improvements to the Alton to St. Louis section or improvements north of Dwight.

The service plan is odd with 3 high speed trains a day, one slow one and a slow Texas Eagle because of capacity and scheduling issues. Hopefully, if they don't have to spend the reserve on the current planned work, they can do enough other upgrades to have all the trains run faster. Also, for $1.1 billion, they really should be increasing service frequency with another daily train or two.


----------



## Eric S (Dec 16, 2010)

afigg said:


> The service plan is odd with 3 high speed trains a day, one slow one and a slow Texas Eagle because of capacity and scheduling issues. Hopefully, if they don't have to spend the reserve on the current planned work, they can do enough other upgrades to have all the trains run faster. Also, for $1.1 billion, they really should be increasing service frequency with another daily train or two.


I agree. I think it related to the fact that the Environmental Impact Statement (or some such report) for the project was completed back in 2003 or 2004 when there were only 3 trains/day on the line, the _Texas Eagle_ and 2 pre-_Lincoln Service_ trains (_Ann Rutledge_ and _State House_). Hopefully once the project is completed, there will be no significant impediments to at least speeding up the "other" current _Lincoln_ train and the _Texas Eagle_ so all 5 trains/day run at higher speeds.

EDIT: And, if I remember correctly, the plan includes purchasing enough new equipment so that all 4 _Lincoln_ trains/day run with the new equipment rather than 3 with new and 1 with current Amfleet/Horizon cars.


----------



## afigg (Dec 17, 2010)

Eric S said:


> I agree. I think it related to the fact that the Environmental Impact Statement (or some such report) for the project was completed back in 2003 or 2004 when there were only 3 trains/day on the line, the _Texas Eagle_ and 2 pre-_Lincoln Service_ trains (_Ann Rutledge_ and _State House_). Hopefully once the project is completed, there will be no significant impediments to at least speeding up the "other" current _Lincoln_ train and the _Texas Eagle_ so all 5 trains/day run at higher speeds.
> 
> EDIT: And, if I remember correctly, the plan includes purchasing enough new equipment so that all 4 _Lincoln_ trains/day run with the new equipment rather than 3 with new and 1 with current Amfleet/Horizon cars.


You may be right on the reason for the odd 3 high speed trains/day in the application. With the rush to get the ARRA applications in, they may have re-used old schedule calculations for 3 higher speed daily trains and just stuck in the current run times for the 4th Lincoln service and Texas Eagle trains.

Of course, the current Horizons and Amfleet cars can run at 110 mph. But, when they are ready to officially launch the higher speed Chi-StL service, it makes sense to roll out brand new cars with the more modern amenities to help sell the service for the business travelers. The Illinois application calls for $60 million to buy 12 locomotives at $5m each and $120 million to buy 30 passenger cars at a rather padded $4 million each.

Amtrak ordered 130 Viewliner 2s for $298.1 million total, which works out to an average of $2.3 million a car. The order includes sleeper and diner cars which presumably cost more than a coach car. For $120 million total, Illinois may be able to buy 40 or more passenger cars if the price comes in under $3 million each. Of course, if Illinois order Talgos, then that will change the car count.

If the $180 million for rolling stock can go far enough, IL should look at buying enough equipment to support 5 to 6 daily Lincoln service trains. Although there will be constraints on track capacity even after the $1.1 billion is spent, until they find the funding to double track it. I think that if they can get the Chi-StL trip times down to as fast or faster than driving, that ridership will increase a lot more than projected in the application. Which means either longer trains or more trains.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 17, 2010)

afigg said:


> The Illinois application calls for $60 million to buy 12 locomotives at $5m each and $120 million to buy 30 passenger cars at a rather padded $4 million each.
> 
> Amtrak ordered 130 Viewliner 2s for $298.1 million total, which works out to an average of $2.3 million a car. The order includes sleeper and diner cars which presumably cost more than a coach car. For $120 million total, Illinois may be able to buy 40 or more passenger cars if the price comes in under $3 million each. Of course, if Illinois order Talgos, then that will change the car count.
> 
> If the $180 million for rolling stock can go far enough, IL should look at buying enough equipment to support 5 to 6 daily Lincoln service trains. Although there will be constraints on track capacity even after the $1.1 billion is spent, until they find the funding to double track it. I think that if they can get the Chi-StL trip times down to as fast or faster than driving, that ridership will increase a lot more than projected in the application. Which means either longer trains or more trains.


It's expected that they'll buy bi-level cars, which would cost more than single level cars; even single level cars that are sleepers and diners.


----------



## Ben (Dec 17, 2010)

Was the application for equipment funded though? I thought the $1.1 billion was for tracks only and the equipment application was separate.


----------



## afigg (Dec 19, 2010)

Ben said:


> Was the application for equipment funded though? I thought the $1.1 billion was for tracks only and the equipment application was separate.


Looking through the 880 page application, the equipment order certainly appears to be part of the $1.142 billion application. The FRA list of selected ARRA HSIPR projects description for this project mentions rolling stock: "Improvements to track, signal, station and rolling stock to enable three of five current daily round-trips to operate at 110mph between Alton (near St. Louis) and Dwight (near Chicago)."

If the Illinois order is going to be for bi-level cars, then Illinois & Iowa could team with California to get a better price on a combined order. But I can see Talgo playing politics, dangling the prospect of a assembly plant in Illinois, and having the politicians overrule the carefully made plans of the DOT staff, and telling them to order Talgo train sets.


----------



## Paulus Magnus (Jan 3, 2011)

AlanB said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > The Illinois application calls for $60 million to buy 12 locomotives at $5m each and $120 million to buy 30 passenger cars at a rather padded $4 million each.
> ...


No reason for bilevels to cost 4 million dollars. Metrolink's new bilevel cars were only about two million each and Oregon's latest Talgo train sets were about 1.4 million per car.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jan 3, 2011)

afigg said:


> Ben said:
> 
> 
> > Was the application for equipment funded though? I thought the $1.1 billion was for tracks only and the equipment application was separate.
> ...


Nippon Sharyo (spelling?) has already opened a plant in Sterling, IL., to assemble 160 electric-powered commuter cars for Metra, so don't count them out on building double-deck corridor cars for Illinois.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 3, 2011)

Paulus Magnus said:


> No reason for bilevels to cost 4 million dollars. Metrolink's new bilevel cars were only about two million each and Oregon's latest Talgo train sets were about 1.4 million per car.


The real question is not dollars per car, but dollars per seat.


----------

