# Talgos mothballed?



## Steve4031 (Mar 15, 2012)

http://fox6now.com/2012/03/14/plan-to-replace-amtrak-trains-with-talgo-is-mothballed/

This just ruined my day.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Mar 15, 2012)

Steve4031 said:


> http://fox6now.com/2012/03/14/plan-to-replace-amtrak-trains-with-talgo-is-mothballed/
> 
> This just ruined my day.


Those cheesehead Republicans are amazing. If Walker had allowed the Madison extension to proceed, the cost of the maintenance base would have been covered by the federal grant. Now, the state will be sued by Talgo for millions of dollars. . The train sets will be sold to Washington and Oregon (like some so many people on railfan sites have advocated) and the Hiawathas will be stuck with Horizons forever since the forward looking states that are buying new bi-levels won't allow them to be used in Wisconsin. Brilliant job, guys.


----------



## Donctor (Mar 15, 2012)

Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!

The Talgos may be nice, but they don't belong on the Hiawathas.

Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!

Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!

Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!


----------



## Steve4031 (Mar 15, 2012)

And I'm stuck riding crappy horizons . . . Hooray (not).


----------



## afigg (Mar 15, 2012)

MikefromCrete said:


> Those cheesehead Republicans are amazing. If Walker had allowed the Madison extension to proceed, the cost of the maintenance base would have been covered by the federal grant. Now, the state will be sued by Talgo for millions of dollars. . The train sets will be sold to Washington and Oregon (like some so many people on railfan sites have advocated) and the Hiawathas will be stuck with Horizons forever since the forward looking states that are buying new bi-levels won't allow them to be used in Wisconsin. Brilliant job, guys.


This is not a total surprise. I have not been following the recent news in Wisconsin that closely, but this has been coming for a while. WI went ahead and brought the Talgos on their own initiative without any coordination with the other Midwest states or looking at the regional picture. The Talgos offered faster trip times between Milwaukee and Madison, so the state DOT with a lot of political involvement because the Talgos would be built in WI, settled on the Talgos. The original plan, IIRC, was for WI to buy at least 2 more Talgos with the federal funding (or was it 3 to 4 additional Talgos?), enough to support service on the Chicago to Milwaukee to Madison corridor.

When Gov. Walker killed the Madison service extension, WI ended up with only 2 Talgo trainsets that had been ordered with state funding and was planning to use them for the Hiawatha service. The problem is that the cost effectiveness of building and manning a unique maintenance facility for only 2 trainsets, and only 2 trainsets, is downright lousy. There are no spare trainsets, so Amtrak would have to provide Horizons on days when a trainset has to be taken out of service. This problem applies to anyone who might consider buying the Talgos who does not already have Talgos.

Oregon is buying the other 2 Talgo trainsets from this production run, but they can't put them to full use in the near term because of current limits on number of daily trains on the Cascades corridor. The 2 Oregon Talgos will provide spare capacity in the near term, so Amtrak won't have to substitute Superliners when a Talgo set is out for maintenance. The 2 Oregon Talgos may allow for a 3rd daily train to Vancouver and maybe another daily train south of Portland, but I am not clear on that.

The problem is that Washington state is not allowed by BNSF to add more daily trains between Seattle and Portland until 2017 when the scheduled track projects are done. So if Washington State were to buy the 2 WI Talgos, they could get mothballed for up to 5 years, which is not a good use of state money.

This is a phrase to describe the situation which starts with cluster with the last word not suitable for family viewing.

As for the Hiawatha corridor, I expect WI will eventually get included in the bi-level corridor car program. If WI could find a buyer for the 2 Talgos, they could put the sale money towards buying bi-level cars. Or apply for federal funding next year to buy additional bi-levels on the back end of the 130 car order. And when the Milwaukee to Madison extension project comes back to life, use bi-levels on that corridor even if they are a little slower than the Talgos.


----------



## jis (Mar 15, 2012)

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?


----------



## Eric S (Mar 15, 2012)

I agree with *afigg*. This whole Talgo and MKE-MSN fiasco is the result of poor and horrible decisions by both former Gov. Doyle (ordering 2 trainsets rather than working with other Midwest states on a joint purchase) and Walker (hastilly cancelling the MKE-MSN extension). I doubt that this is the final word, though, on what ends up happening.


----------



## saxman (Mar 15, 2012)

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.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 15, 2012)

Alice in Wonderland!!!  "Things get Curiouser and Curiouser!" Sort of Reminds one of Rome where Emperor Nero Fiddled while Rome Burned!! Damn Politicians!!When Will the Voters in Wisonsin (and Other States too!) Catch on to these Charlatans!!


----------



## Ryan (Mar 15, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> When Will the Voters in Wisconsin (and Other States too!) Catch on to these Charlatans!!


May 8 and/or June 5


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 15, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> Alice in Wonderland!!! "Things get Curiouser and Curiouser!" Sort of Reminds one of Rome where Emperor Nero Fiddled while Rome Burned!! Damn Politicians!! When Will the Voters in Wisonsin (and Other States too!) Catch on to these Charlatans!!


Um, I think Wisconsinites _wanted_ these charlatans in power all along. Otherwise why would they have voted for them in the first place? Can't blame the politicians without blaming the voters who put them there. :excl:


----------



## Ryan (Mar 15, 2012)

It would be fairer to say that "the subset of Wisconsonities that voted wanted these charlatans in power all along".


----------



## Trogdor (Mar 15, 2012)

saxman said:


> Does it make sense for the State of Illinois to lease them for the short term?


No it wouldn't. They need a dedicated maintenance facility wherever they run. Illinois has no intention on building one for Talgo.

Operationally, they could probably work on the Quincy Line.

CN frequently puts minimum axle restrictions on their routes (due to a handful of grade crossing collisions in the past), so the trains probably couldn't run to Carbondale without approaching grade crossings prepared to stop. That would take a lot longer than running the current sets, since the Talgos don't have all that many axles.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 15, 2012)

Eric S said:


> 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.


----------



## afigg (Mar 15, 2012)

saxman said:


> 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.


The projected cost of the Talgo maintenance facility is $55 to $63 million! Which is a LOT for a maintenance facility for *TWO* trainsets. Since this a fixed length consist, I guess it must have a lift for the entire consist. If Illinois or anyone else other than WA or OR were to purchase the Talgos, they would have make a hefty investment in a maintenance facility.

Now could Amtrak provide maintenance space at their facilities in Chicago at a lower cost? Possibly, although there could be a maze of agreements and union rules to get through. There could be a move where Amtrak comes along and saves the day, so to speak. But given the near-toxic political situation in WI with Gov. Walker and others facing a recall election, keeping a low profile on the issue of the Talgos for the Hiawatha service would be the prudent move.

WI spent $72 million on the 2 Talgo sets. If that money had instead been put into a secure place so Walker & the new legislature would be forced to leave it alone. While an agreement with IL was signed to use the funding to buy new cars once IL had settled on what car types to buy with the CHI-STL corridor award, the $72 million could have been applied to buy *16* bi-level corridor cars at the placeholder price of $4.5 million each (which includes spare parts and acquisition costs). The 16 bi-levels could have been split into 2 consists of 6 cars each for the Hiawatha service with 4 cars for the general fleet pool. Would have made for a total order of 104 bi-level cars for the Midwest along the 42 for California. Cluster[bleep] indeed.

Meanwhile as the world turns: 1) Talgo is likely to sue over breech of contract; 2) Walker and some Republican state legislatures will have a recall election. Break out the popcorn, there could be more twists and turns in this story yet to come.


----------



## afigg (Mar 15, 2012)

jis said:


> 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?


----------



## jis (Mar 15, 2012)

afigg said:


> 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?


Oh I dunno. If it does not involve any federal money things could move quite quickly. A year or two max.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 15, 2012)

I think that the Talgos should be used on any one of these routes:

SEA-SPK

SEA-YVR (Vancouver)

CHI-MSP

CHI-OMA

CHI-KCY

CHI-STL

CHI-MEM

CHI-CIN

CHI-CLE

CHI-PGH

JAX-MIA

SFO-LAX

DEN-SLC

CHI-YYZ (Toronto)

Very large amount of ideas, but at least a few of them are feasible.


----------



## ctroldn toouches (Mar 15, 2012)

While either of the Seattle ideas would be a great place for these consists to end up on, the Chicago and California runs all would make a lot more sense to run with bilevels like the ones being ordered.


----------



## R30A (Mar 15, 2012)

Also, an aside, VAC and TWO are the amtrak codes for Vancouver and Toronto respectively.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Mar 15, 2012)

afigg said:


> saxman said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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?


----------



## afigg (Mar 15, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I think that the Talgos should be used on any one of these routes:
> 
> SEA-SPK
> 
> ...


The whole point is the cost of a Talgo maintenance facility is simply too steep to be viable for almost anyone who can buy only 2 Talgo trainsets. And having only 2 trainsets, if both are used each day, means no reserve capacity unless Amtrak is willing to provide Horizons on short notice. These are effectively orphan trainsets for use on any CHI based corridor, unless the buyer is willing to lay out additional funds to start up a Talgo production facility (again). If there were 4-5 new Talgo trainsets for sale, that might be a different matter.


----------



## Donctor (Mar 15, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> 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.


----------



## afigg (Mar 15, 2012)

jis said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


True, federal money while useful, does slow the decision and engineering review process down by years. The Virginia Norfolk extension is moving along at a rapid pace compared to other projects. If a viable Seattle to Spokane service could be started without spending a lot on track upgrades, would be neat to see new service in just a year or two. An example of where service could be started (or restored depending on your timeframe) because of the LD train keeping passenger service between the cities alive.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Mar 15, 2012)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > afigg said:
> ...



The problem with that is that there would be many track impreovements necessary. From what I picked up in the North Coast Hiawatha service study, much of the line west of Pasco is in dark territory, and has a 50 mph limit.


----------



## Eric S (Mar 15, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > and Walker (hastilly cancelling the MKE-MSN extension).
> ...


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 (Mar 15, 2012)

Donctor said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


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 (Mar 15, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


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 (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

saxman said:


> 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 (Mar 16, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> 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 (Mar 16, 2012)

Eric S said:


> 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 (Mar 16, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> 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 (Mar 16, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > Talgo technology, which is brilliant, makes sense in 3 places:
> ...


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 (Mar 16, 2012)

afigg said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> 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 (Mar 17, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm. Hadn't thought of that. So much for my "big picture" cleverness. Red-faced.
> ...



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 (Mar 17, 2012)

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 (Mar 17, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> 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 (Mar 17, 2012)

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 (Mar 17, 2012)

NE933 said:


> 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 (Mar 17, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> ...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 (Mar 18, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> 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 (Mar 18, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> 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 (Mar 18, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > This week's NARP bulletin chimes in on the Talgo maintenance costs:
> ...


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?


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Mar 18, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > ...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.
> ...


The difference in the per-car price is substantially accounted for by scale of the order. That's not to say that Kazakhstan's manufacturing costs are not lower than those in the US, but recent large car builds across the world show the advantage of ordering in quantity. If you doubt the premise, I'll supply some examples.

I certainly believe that we can spend $50 million, on anything. We could probably spend $50 million on paper clips. And only wind up with a handfull of the things.

What I am saying is that there is no need to spend that. The new, dedicated maintenance facility is not needed at all, in reality or by contract, let alone at that price.

Having said all that, we agree on one point: the trains were never a good choice for this route, and should not operate there. I feel sorry for Wisconsin's taxpayers, and her traveling public. I have family in Wisconsin, and feel sorry for them, too. But WI has gone strange on itself, and has to sort out its own problems. In the mean time, there are a couple of slick trains for sale, probably cheap, and I'll bet that the maintenance cost issue will mysteriously disappear for whomever buys them.


----------



## Ozark Southern (Mar 29, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I think that the Talgos should be used on any one of these routes:
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


No to CHI-KCY. The Chief already runs Superliners, and there is nothing but nothing once you leave Chicagoland until you reach KCY. Corridor service should never and will never happen on this route.

Now, CHI-STL-KCY, on the other hand, would be an excellent candidate for Talgos. The route is pretty crooked, lots of curves where the tilting could really make a speed difference. However, 2 MORRs and 4 Lincolns is probably not enough to justify a maintenance facility in STL. Combined with other CHI corridor trains, perhaps, but then the order gets really big and really expensive, since you'd want to convert them all for lower maintenance costs.

On the other hand, IL, MO, and MI are getting bi-level cars in the next couple of years, so they wouldn't buy the Talgos now anyway. In fact, it's probably a better deal for WI to cancel the Talgos and just go with the bi-levels on the Hiawatha.


----------



## afigg (Mar 29, 2012)

Ozark Southern said:


> On the other hand, IL, MO, and MI are getting bi-level cars in the next couple of years, so they wouldn't buy the Talgos now anyway. In fact, it's probably a better deal for WI to cancel the Talgos and just go with the bi-levels on the Hiawatha.


The problem is that it is far too late for WI to cancel the Talgo order because the cars have been built. From the public photos of the trainsets or trainset, the Talgo facility may be in the final stages of fitting our the cars and subjecting them to testing. The 4 Talgo trainsets get completed, delivered to Oregon and Wisconsin and then it is probably lights out for the Talgo assembly facility in WI with layoffs unless it is repurposed to a maintenance facility.


----------



## guest (Apr 1, 2012)

Now HERE is what a long distance train should look like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=texBM4f_w4Q


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 1, 2012)

guest said:


> Now HERE is what a long distance train should look like: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=texBM4f_w4Q


Indeed.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Apr 2, 2012)

The Dining Car's 2x1 seating would yield far less capacity than Amtrak's 2x2 seating. Though, I thought the isle's seats flipping up, to allow easier access to the window seat, was brilliant.

Requiring passengers to listen to that music constantly on any LD train, will certainly start to drive passengers away.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 2, 2012)

guest said:


> Now HERE is what a long distance train should look like:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=texBM4f_w4Q


That's nice and all, but it's got nothing on Amtrak's brand new order of 130 Boxliners.

Just think... Forty years from now, in the early 2050's, Amtrak will _still_ be running 1980's designs at 1980's speeds.

We don't need no stinking Talgos to accomplish that! :lol:


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 2, 2012)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> The Dining Car's 2x1 seating would yield far less capacity than Amtrak's 2x2 seating. Though, I thought the isle's seats flipping up, to allow easier access to the window seat, was brilliant.
> 
> Requiring passengers to listen to that music constantly on any LD train, will certainly start to drive passengers away.


The dining car on the Renfe "Trenhotel" is actually something of a luxury experience, and capacity is not the primary goal. Passengers do not generally sit "community style" — solo riders are allowed to sit at their own tables, and couples are escorted to 4-person tables unless the train is full. Diners who do not know each other may be asked to share on a crowded train, but it is the exception, not the rule, and the maitre d' knows the train's (and thus the diner's) likely occupancy, and spreads people out as much as he can.

The service is "black tie," and 3-course meals are the norm, plus an aperitif, and often an after-dinner drink and coffee (or tea). On some trains (Madrid - Paris, for example), the meal, including a bottle of wine, is included for "Gran Class" ticket holders (cabins with ensuite shower and WC), passengers in regular (non-shower) cabins are accommodated around them. On others, which carry only cabins with private ensuite facilities (like the one pictured), you may opt to pre-purchase dinner when you make your reservation, or not. If you pre-purchase, your space is guaranteed. Otherwise, you may make a reservation with the steward when you board.

Fairly few coach passengers go to the diner, and even most economy sleeper passengers prefer the café, so the car's capacity is approximately adequate for the ±80 sleeper berths, catered to in 2 or 3 seatings, as needed. A full 2 hours per seating is allowed... meaning that the last seating can be quite late on a full train (technically, 11p, though they seat people as diners from the 9p seating finish up). On trains with a 7p seating, the first service may start before the train even leaves its origin station. Some trains (the Barcelona - Galicia service, for instance) carry two dining cars (remember, these are talgo cars, so small: the kitchen for each is in the adjacent caré coach).

Indeed, the train additionally carries a café, and the café offers hot dishes as well as the usual more snack-y things. Even the dining car items can be served at the bar, à la carte (useful if you want a quick steak, but not the 2-hour experience).

As for the music: it is only played (when it is played at all) when the train is in its origin and destination stations. The one filmed appears to be the Barcelona - Gijon service: the music would perhaps be on as passengers board in Barcelona, but would be turned off with the first "welcome aboard" announcement. It might go back on once the train had come to a stop in the Gijon station, and play as passengers disembarked. Each sleeper cabin contains on / off switches, of course. The crew has an emergency override, allowing emergency announcements to be made even when the sleeper cabin setting is to "off."

It's a nice way to get around.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Apr 2, 2012)

While it may be uneconomical you could have multi-height platforms, that have low level and high level integrated into the same platform. You could make a platform that has "waves" in it and has low section every X number of feet and high section every X number of feet to match up with doors of 2 or more car designs. I would have to do the math, but it seems like it would be possible to accommodate Amfleets, Talgos and Superliners on the same platform. You could either do this with smooth transitions between the different height sections or you could separate each section with a railing similar to a wheelchair ramp. Of course for this to work trains would have to be precisely spotted for the doors to open on the usable sections of the platforms.


----------



## Cascadia (Apr 2, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > Talgo technology, which is brilliant, makes sense in 3 places:
> ...


Yeah when going through White Rock at a slow pace the cars would be thrown from side to side - it was very unpleasant until they fixed it and made me dislike the Talgos - they've grown on me a little bit more since then.


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 2, 2012)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> While it may be uneconomical you could have multi-height platforms, that have low level and high level integrated into the same platform. You could make a platform that has "waves" in it and has low section every X number of feet and high section every X number of feet to match up with doors of 2 or more car designs. I would have to do the math, but it seems like it would be possible to accommodate Amfleets, Talgos and Superliners on the same platform. You could either do this with smooth transitions between the different height sections or you could separate each section with a railing similar to a wheelchair ramp. Of course for this to work trains would have to be precisely spotted for the doors to open on the usable sections of the platforms.


It would be quite impractical to have a wave-like platform like that. Passengers walking down the platform would have to go up and down the hill every few feet, not to mention that Talgos have shorter cars and would need to have low-level spots more often.


----------



## Donctor (Apr 2, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> Indeed, the train additionally carries a café, and the café offers hot dishes as well as the usual more snack-y things. Even the dining car items can be served at the bar, à la carte (useful if you want a quick steak, but not the 2-hour experience).


I dig the bar quite a bit, but in my experience the diner food has been atrocious.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 2, 2012)

guest said:


> Now HERE is what a long distance train should look like:


When I see all this wonderful stuff, all I can say is before getting too wild about it, raise the hood.

This equipment as it stands will never run in the US, and IMHO should not. Here are a few points.

ADA: There appears to be no such thing in Europe. Look at the platform gap. Look at the restrooms. Look at the width of the aisles and doorways. Non-compliant.

Evacuation: at 47 seconds and 1:27: Look quick because it goes by quick. The cutesy little hammer on the wall is to be used to BREAK the window so you can go out it in case of the need to evacuate that way. Ever heard the expression, "crawling over broken glass?" That is what you do if you ever need to go out a train window in Europe. They seem to not believe in our zip strip pop out windows. I once heard something about cannot be used at high speeds due to the aerodynamic pulse. Been between New York and Philadelphia recently. With the close track centers you get about as much aerodynamic pulse there as you will anywhere at any speed currently operated.

We won't even discuss durability, and they sure hope we don't.


----------



## Blackwolf (Apr 2, 2012)

George Harris said:


> Evacuation: at 47 seconds and 1:27: Look quick because it goes by quick. The cutesy little hammer on the wall is to be used to BREAK the window so you can go out it in case of the need to evacuate that way. Ever heard the expression, "crawling over broken glass?" That is what you do if you ever need to go out a train window in Europe. They seem to not believe in our zip strip pop out windows. I once heard something about cannot be used at high speeds due to the aerodynamic pulse. Been between New York and Philadelphia recently. With the close track centers you get about as much aerodynamic pulse there as you will anywhere at any speed currently operated.


The hammer exists in Canada as well, as our neighbor to the north follows European safety standards in many instances. Also note that not all of the windows are capable of being broken, only a few in each car are made of tempered glass that shatters while the rest are of the standard glazing that is shatterproof. One of the issues raised in terms of durability of the tempered 'evacuation window' in February's VIA Rail accident in Ontario was when a passenger, due to the force of the derailment, was ejected outside of the train car from his seat through the evacuation window. His body became that nice little hammer, and his back was broken as a result.

Not to say it cannot happen in any circumstance, but ejection due to shattering windows is not something you hear of in any Amtrak accident (that I am aware of.) Little consolation in a wreck, true, but the zipper-style window gaskets are much better IMO. Thank the stars I've not had to be involved with a real train wreck, but I have been trained in the emergency procedures of a first responder at a passenger train accident. FRA complaint glass is not something that breaks easily at all, even with a Fireman's axe. You're better off cutting through it with a circular saw, or better yet, just pulling the rubber gasket.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 3, 2012)

George Harris said:


> guest said:
> 
> 
> > Now HERE is what a long distance train should look like:
> ...


I don't know ADA requirements, but the trains are certainly handicapped accessible. Not the whole train, mind: you can't wheel your chair from one end to the other. But then the Superliners don't do so well at that, either (I want to see the chair take those stairs! — heck, 10% of the population is too overweight to squeeze down a Superliner cooridor, forget the wheelchairs). There are individual cars (and toilets) that allow wheelchair access, and a ramp system to handle the platform gap.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 3, 2012)

George Harris said:


> guest said:
> 
> 
> > Now HERE is what a long distance train should look like:
> ...


Why not?

When the "Catalan Talgo" Talgo III sets were retired from service in 2010, they were in their 41st year of operation. During most of that time, they ran 865 kilometers (about 535 miles) a day, every day (from Barcelona to Geneva, then later a Barcelona - Montpellier round trip). No "out of service for a month for FRA inspections." When they were retired, it was not because they were breaking down, but because the technology had moved on so far that they had become "commercially unacceptable."

Talgo takes great pride in its maintenance, and reliability. Indeed, if there is a problem, that is it: they typically refuse to sell their trains without a dedicated engineer aboard to keep the things running smoothly. So maintenance costs are high (see above in this thread). But durability doesn't seem to be an issue, unless you are talking about interior decoration (?). I can't say that the decals don't peel off, or whatever: I know nothing about that.


----------



## guest (Apr 3, 2012)

I rode the Talgo IIIs as recently as 2008, and they ran like a charm. And the way the exit windows work is that you hit the window where the red target is, causing it to shatter, then turn the hammer around to the hook side, which you use to tear the plastic lamination open, so that there is no broken glass to crawl over. It shatters from side to side, and remains adhered to the laminate. Platform gaps across Europe are FAR more consistently "doable" than most Amtrak platforms outside the NEC. And if you take a spin on the Cascades sets, you'll find that a standard size wheelchair WILL fit virtually end-to-end in the train...


----------



## jis (Apr 3, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> When the "Catalan Talgo" Talgo III sets were retired from service in 2010, they were in their 41st year of operation. During most of that time, they ran 865 kilometers (about 535 miles) a day, every day (from Barcelona to Geneva, then later a Barcelona - Montpellier round trip). No "out of service for a month for FRA inspections." When they were retired, it was not because they were breaking down, but because the technology had moved on so far that they had become "commercially unacceptable."


Just interested in some operational details. How many consists were assigned to the Catalan Talgo service? I have no idea that is why I ask. The allocation would give us some idea about how much time was spent in maintenance by each consist and validate or refute your claim about how much time was taken up by the European equivalent of FRA stuff, and trust me there is quite a bit of it, even if you may think otherwise. Also would you happen to know how many rebuilds they went through in the 41 years?

Note that this is not a criticism of Talgo, either the train or the company or anything like that. All trains require preventive maintenance and rebuilds to operate well, and in service failures are more often than not caused by inadequate maintenance. It is just an attempt to get some real facts.

BTW, the out of service for months for FRA inspection had to do with cracks in the suspension which was caused by a manufacturing defect at Talgo, and Talgo did handle it with grace. But it was neither FRA's nor Amtrak's fault as you seem to imply.


----------



## cirdan (Apr 3, 2012)

jis said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > When the "Catalan Talgo" Talgo III sets were retired from service in 2010, they were in their 41st year of operation. During most of that time, they ran 865 kilometers (about 535 miles) a day, every day (from Barcelona to Geneva, then later a Barcelona - Montpellier round trip). No "out of service for a month for FRA inspections." When they were retired, it was not because they were breaking down, but because the technology had moved on so far that they had become "commercially unacceptable."
> ...


You can check out the equipment here

http://www.listadotren.es/talgo/index.php

The Catalan Talgo was a Talgo III - RD

The Montpellier- Cartagena trains were from a different pool (Talgo Pendular/ Talgo VII)

As far as the Catalan Talgo was concerned, I am not aware of any major rebuilds during their working lives. Their interiors were certainly very 1950s, which added to their charm.


----------



## jis (Apr 3, 2012)

cirdan said:


> You can check out the equipment here
> 
> http://www.listadotren.es/talgo/index.php
> 
> ...


I am intimately familiar with the equipment having ridden in them. I was looking for some operational details, which is not to be found in any of the materials I have seen so far. Things like what maintenance schedules were followed, how many consist were assigned etc.


----------



## cirdan (Apr 3, 2012)

jis said:


> I am intimately familiar with the equipment having ridden in them. I was looking for some operational details, which is not to be found in any of the materials I have seen so far. Things like what maintenance schedules were followed, how many consist were assigned etc.


There being 5 of each type of end car and 5 cafeteria cars would suggest there were five Talgo III-RD sets in total.

But these were not used exclusively on the Catalan talgo but also on inland services.

Furthermore, the sets were not permanently joined but individual cars were swopped around for repairs.

So it can get quite complicated to trace availability figures etc.

However, in the early days there was a mechanic on every train who would travel on the train and be able to fix things as required. This was probably because places like Geneva and Paris didn't have maintenance facilities or staff that were able to cope with this type of train.


----------



## jis (Apr 3, 2012)

cirdan said:


> There being 5 of each type of end car and 5 cafeteria cars would suggest there were five Talgo III-RD sets in total.
> 
> But these were not used exclusively on the Catalan talgo but also on inland services.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info.

Talgo seems to have a mechanic running with many of their trains, which makes one wonder about their reliability sans the mechanic on board. Just wondering. A run from Madrid to Paris and back should not really require mechanical attention in typical equipment. It may have something to do with the fact that they are out of the ordinary special equipment that is not too broadly deployed to make it worthwhile training sufficient maintenance folks to keep at various locations of travel. This was specially the case with the few Talgos used on overnight service. I suppose the situation is probably different in Finland where different sort of Talgo cars are used in frequent corridor service.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 4, 2012)

cirdan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I am intimately familiar with the equipment having ridden in them. I was looking for some operational details, which is not to be found in any of the materials I have seen so far. Things like what maintenance schedules were followed, how many consist were assigned etc.
> ...


As Cirdan said, the Talgo III RD (gage-changing) equipment could form a maximum of 5 sets, but only 4 were ever diagrammed, as far as I know (and the 5 sets would have been pretty short had you formed them).

I'm not aware of any sets running in regular interior service, other than in an exceptional situation, or very late in their careers, once the night trains to Paris had both received next-generation equipment. That is not to say it never happened... I just don't recall it. They ran essentially on two trains: the "Catalan Talgo" to Geneva, and the Madrid - Paris night train. Once that was converted to a next generation set, I think that the Talgo III RD sets were cascaded to the Barcelona - Paris service, but I don't know how long they ran there.

I knew with certainty where they all were at one point in the late 1970's, or maybe the early 80's: 3 of the "unique" cars (ends & cafés) were stabled in Madrid, and 2 in Barcelona. The Barcelona cars worked the "Catalan Talgo," while the Madrid cars worked the Hotel Train "Francisco de Goya" (not yet called that) to Paris. I guess they kept the spares in Madrid because of the longer time "on the track" for the Paris sets?

Anyway, in normal circumstances the Barcelona-stabled cars had to run every day, because there was no spare available in the yard. You would have had to bring it from Madrid, then a 6+-hour trip (now down to under 3).

I have no information on maintenance cycles, but there were never any major renovations. One of Talgo's selling points has always been availability. Part of their way of attaining that was to keep a mechanic on board all services. At least at one stage, they refused to sell equipment at all: they would only lease it, and the mechanics (who remained Talgo employees) were part of the lease. This allowed Talgo to use a near perfect reliability record as a sales argument: "you don't need extra sets for spares: our trains always run."

But, as others have pointed out (and as Wisconsin laments) that mechanic has a cost...

Anecdote: I was on the La Coruña - Barcelona service this summer, when the toilet in my sleeper cabin failed. The on-board mechanic was summoned and I went to dinner. He basically dismantled the whole thing (I came back to my cabin for a book, and found the actual toilet sitting out in the corridor), replaced a part, put it back together, and then the whole rest room was thoroughly cleaned, all towels replaced, a new shaving kit provided... in sum, when I returned from dinner, the WC had been prepared as if for a passenger boarding. So, the mechanic may be the secret to the reliability, and not any superior construction.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 4, 2012)

jis said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > When the "Catalan Talgo" Talgo III sets were retired from service in 2010, they were in their 41st year of operation. During most of that time, they ran 865 kilometers (about 535 miles) a day, every day (from Barcelona to Geneva, then later a Barcelona - Montpellier round trip). No "out of service for a month for FRA inspections." When they were retired, it was not because they were breaking down, but because the technology had moved on so far that they had become "commercially unacceptable."
> ...


Not intending to imply much here, and I wasn't actually thinking of the cracks-in-the-suspension incident.

I know, because I have learned it here (on this web site, not in this thread), that the FRA requires equipment be removed from service on some prescribed cycle for heavy inspection, perhaps even requiring that that inspection take place in a major shop (I don't know, just guessing there — sounds like you might have info on that).

I do not dispute that European inspection is thorough. I have worked for four European railways, twice in jobs where equipment diagramming was a part of what I had to understand and follow. But it must be rare for a car to be pulled from service for even a 24-hour period (unless a defect is found): the longest I ever encountered (in France or Belgium) was 10 hours, and the inspections were performed in company yards where the cars were based. Of course, this is easier in Paris, Brussels, or even Oostende, then it would be in, say, Quincy, IL, because of the size of the shops. But I gather that FRA inspections can't even happen in Chicago (for example), that they have to be in Beech Grove, or Bear?

Anyway, equipment purchases can presumably be made with less "extra" required if equipment doesn't need to be removed from service and shipped somewhere for inspection.


----------



## cirdan (Apr 4, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> Not intending to imply much here, and I wasn't actually thinking of the cracks-in-the-suspension incident.
> 
> I know, because I have learned it here (on this web site, not in this thread), that the FRA requires equipment be removed from service on some prescribed cycle for heavy inspection, perhaps even requiring that that inspection take place in a major shop (I don't know, just guessing there — sounds like you might have info on that).
> 
> ...



Good observation. I believe DB's entire ICE fleet is maintained from two bases, one in Munich and one in Hamburg. The trains basically run into the facility between runs or at night. The modern shops allow work to be done on different levels at the same time, so while cleaners may be deep-cleaning the seats, another crew may be inspecting the undersides of the carriages and bogies and changing parts as necessary (with bogies being able to be dropped out without having to lift or even uncouple the coach) and another crew may be on the roof servicing the pantograph and the other equipment that's up there. The electronic on board system of the train keeps accurate track of the train's performance and can even diagnose problems before they occur so the shop staff can be pre-informed of what they need to do even before the train has left service. With both shops being at major hubs, there is no need for dead mileage or long transfer periods and trains can be back in revenue earning service within hours rather than days.


----------



## cirdan (Apr 4, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> As Cirdan said, the Talgo III RD (gage-changing) equipment could form a maximum of 5 sets, but only 4 were ever diagrammed, as far as I know (and the 5 sets would have been pretty short had you formed them).
> 
> I'm not aware of any sets running in regular interior service, other than in an exceptional situation, or very late in their careers, once the night trains to Paris had both received next-generation equipment. That is not to say it never happened... I just don't recall it. They ran essentially on two trains: the "Catalan Talgo" to Geneva, and the Madrid - Paris night train. Once that was converted to a next generation set, I think that the Talgo III RD sets were cascaded to the Barcelona - Paris service, but I don't know how long they ran there.


As initially delivered, they were all day trains. The first gauge changer was at Madrid, and was hence only for testing purposes as besides the short test track, there was no standard gauge RENFE track in Madrid at the time. The next one built was at Cerbere, and this permitted the introduction of the Catalan Talgo to Geneva. In 1968, Talgo III-RD sets were used on a once daily Madrid to Cadiz express, but I understand this was a sort set that was coupled to a longer Talgo III train. Although some international test and demonstration runs began in 1967, the Catalan Talgo didn't begin proper commercial operation until 1969. Three of the matching diesel locomotives were fitted with standard gauge bogies to haul the trains on the French leg of this trip. As only two were required at any one time and the locomotives would not have been suitable for any other purposes, this reflects quite a high level of redundancy. In later years standard locomotives (with some modifications) were permited to pull the Talgos. In later years the exact route was changed several times tp permit greater use of electrified mileage.

The third gauge changer was the one at San Andreu Comtal outside Barcelona which was where the Barcelona-based talgos were maintaned. The next one was at Irun. As far as I know the sleeping cars were not added until the early 1970s, permitting the three Madid-based sets to be re-formed as night trains for use on Madrid - Paris. I guess the displaced day mid cars were transferred to the Barcelona pool. Thus ended their regular use on internal services. The sleeping cars had diagonally arranged beds which were more comfortable for taller people than the standard crossway beds of other trains. The gangway was thus sawtooth shaped which was very useful for people carrying luggage meeting others coming the other way.

Whereas the day trains continued on until 2010, the night trains were replaced at a much earlier point by the Talgo Pendular stock that is still used today. I guess the old night cars must have been scrapped with parts being used to keep the day cars running.

Today there are night trains from both Madrid and Barcelona to Paris running every night and also a thrice weekly train from Barcelona to Zurich and Milan (splitting eb route). There are also two day Talgos via Cerbere every day, one is the former Catalan Talgo (which no longer uses that name) and runs from Barcelona to Montpellier the other is the Mare Nostrum from Montpellier to Murcia/Cartagena.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 4, 2012)

cirdan said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > As Cirdan said, the Talgo III RD (gage-changing) equipment could form a maximum of 5 sets, but only 4 were ever diagrammed, as far as I know (and the 5 sets would have been pretty short had you formed them).
> ...


Thanks! That should about cover it






One detail: the Barcelona - Montpellier daylight service is gone now. Two daily TGV's run from Paris to Figueras (through the new tunnel under the Pyrenees — the surviving Talgo service still follows the coastal route via Cerbere / Port Bou). Figueras is the temporary terminus of the standard gage line which will soon run thru to Barcelona, and join up with the standard gage AVE line on to Madrid.

In Figueras, a cross platform transfer to a broad gage shuttle train currently brings passengers into Barcelona.

These two TGV - Shuttle combinations are actually slightly faster than the surviving Talgo (the Mare Nostrum, on the coastal route), and so there are now three fast services daily.


----------



## jis (Apr 4, 2012)

cirdan said:


> Good observation. I believe DB's entire ICE fleet is maintained from two bases, one in Munich and one in Hamburg. The trains basically run into the facility between runs or at night. The modern shops allow work to be done on different levels at the same time, so while cleaners may be deep-cleaning the seats, another crew may be inspecting the undersides of the carriages and bogies and changing parts as necessary (with bogies being able to be dropped out without having to lift or even uncouple the coach) and another crew may be on the roof servicing the pantograph and the other equipment that's up there. The electronic on board system of the train keeps accurate track of the train's performance and can even diagnose problems before they occur so the shop staff can be pre-informed of what they need to do even before the train has left service. With both shops being at major hubs, there is no need for dead mileage or long transfer periods and trains can be back in revenue earning service within hours rather than days.


I wonder if the more elaborate inspection regime in the US is a result of the relatively more horrendous tracks in more hostile climatic conditions that the trains have to operate in the US. Just wondering. Usually most such rules are written in someone's blood and are not easily put in place.

Also relatively small fleets and sparser networks makes it harder.

But in general availability in denser operations areas is around 85% to 90% while in less dense operations it is more like 80% in the US. Also I believe that there is much more skimping in regular maintenance that goes on in the US. The case in point are the HHP-8s and the Acelas, both same technology, same manufacturer, mostly same parts, and yet the Acelas which are maintained more carefully have way higher availability than the HHP-8s. And it is also only in the US that patently wrong equipment choices are made using the excuse that EMUs require more inspection than trailers pulled by locomotives. Never heard of that argument being used anywhere else. So indeed there are some perverse effects of regulations in the US.


----------



## CHamilton (Apr 4, 2012)

Talgo to begin layoffs



> Talgo Inc. announced Wednesday that it would start the process of laying off workers involved in building two trains for Wisconsin on Milwaukee's north side.
> The move prompted Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to criticize Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans, claiming their opposition to a major expansion of passenger rail was hurting the prospects of jobs for Milwaukee workers.
> 
> "Last year, under Gov. Walker's leadership, the state of Wisconsin lost more jobs than any other state in the country," said Barrett, who announced last week he would run as a Democrat in an attempt to unseat Walker in a June recall election. "Unfortunately, we are dealing with real lives and real jobs here."
> ...


----------



## gswager (Apr 4, 2012)

One time, I saw a mechanic on board on Cascades on a returning trip from PDX to SEA during 2011 AU Gathering.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 4, 2012)

jis said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > Good observation. I believe DB's entire ICE fleet is maintained from two bases, one in Munich and one in Hamburg. The trains basically run into the facility between runs or at night. The modern shops allow work to be done on different levels at the same time, so while cleaners may be deep-cleaning the seats, another crew may be inspecting the undersides of the carriages and bogies and changing parts as necessary (with bogies being able to be dropped out without having to lift or even uncouple the coach) and another crew may be on the roof servicing the pantograph and the other equipment that's up there. The electronic on board system of the train keeps accurate track of the train's performance and can even diagnose problems before they occur so the shop staff can be pre-informed of what they need to do even before the train has left service. With both shops being at major hubs, there is no need for dead mileage or long transfer periods and trains can be back in revenue earning service within hours rather than days.
> ...


Track could play a part, though RENFE was no one's reference for good track 30 years ago. Indeed, the development of Talgo technology was largely a response to the need to go fast a couple of times a day over bad track, without shaking either the track or the passengers into pieces. Don't get me wrong: 10 mph slow orders were rare. But "rough spots" could last for 100 kilometers.

Climate probably less so: the Madrid service, at least, faces blistering heat at some seasons. Think "Sunset Limited." Just getting the trains cooled when they come in from the yard is a challenge. But, of course, "long-distance" in this context is 14 hours, not 48. And then that fancy mechanic has 10 hours to put the thing back together for its return run.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 4, 2012)

jis said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > Good observation. I believe DB's entire ICE fleet is maintained from two bases, one in Munich and one in Hamburg. The trains basically run into the facility between runs or at night. The modern shops allow work to be done on different levels at the same time, so while cleaners may be deep-cleaning the seats, another crew may be inspecting the undersides of the carriages and bogies and changing parts as necessary (with bogies being able to be dropped out without having to lift or even uncouple the coach) and another crew may be on the roof servicing the pantograph and the other equipment that's up there. The electronic on board system of the train keeps accurate track of the train's performance and can even diagnose problems before they occur so the shop staff can be pre-informed of what they need to do even before the train has left service. With both shops being at major hubs, there is no need for dead mileage or long transfer periods and trains can be back in revenue earning service within hours rather than days.
> ...


Another place where perverse effects of regulation show up is in train weight. I think that track damage increases geometrically with some straightforward combination of speed and axle load. US axle loads are high (Acela at 26 tons per axle, TGV at 17), because the FRA requires that equipment perform well in a wreck, so US railcars are built to be tanks.

This makes sense where trains encounter road vehicles on railway crossings. Less so on the NE Corridor, where a lighter-weight Acela (the only train operating at full line speed) would presumably save Amtrak a great deal in maintenance costs. Will the rare wreck be more serious? Yes. But in the mean time, you will have saved countless lives by transferring people from road to rail by offering cheaper fares, made possible because you don't have to rebuild the railroad every time a train goes by.


----------



## WICT106 (Apr 4, 2012)

Milwaukee Journal: "Talgo to begin layoffs." Even after the $ 810 million was rejected, the stupid, ideological decision by Walker continues to haunt us in WI. AS do the opponents, calling it "choo-choo."


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 4, 2012)

When did they decline it?


----------



## cirdan (Apr 5, 2012)

jis said:


> And it is also only in the US that patently wrong equipment choices are made using the excuse that EMUs require more inspection than trailers pulled by locomotives. Never heard of that argument being used anywhere else. So indeed there are some perverse effects of regulations in the US.


No. That's not just the US. Patently stupid decisions are taken everywhere.

Whereas RIC compatibility rules meant that 30 years ago virtually any passenger car could cross virtually any border in Europe and interoperate into other countries and be compatible with the equipment they had there, including being able to couple up, use the same cable connectors, diaphragms etc, today there is a mass of incompatible systems and trains that are not only restricted to one country but often one route. And if for once a train is ordered that can run in two countries (just two, not all of them as they used to) it is trumpeted as being something totally ahead of its time and a massive price tag is justified.

As recently as the 1980s British rail was ordering diesel railbuses of the 14x classes. They are basically bus bodies mounted on four-wheel freightcar underframes. Yes, four-wheels, no bogies. And no air suspension, all springs and metal. And they were used on branch lines some of which ahd poor track.

The list goes on. So many decisons have been taken that in hindsight come across as insanity.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 5, 2012)

Green Maned Lion said:


> When did they decline it?


Current WI Governor Walker ran, among other things, on a platform of halting the upgrading of rail lines from Chicago to Madison via Milwaukee to 110 mph speeds. The project was well-advanced, with decisions on things like the location of the Madison station (and associated redevelopment of two downtown blocks, creation of a multi-modal tranport hub) mostly in hand. A majority of funding had been secured with a Federal stimulus rail grant of $810 million (out of a total of $8 billion pledged around the country). It was supposed to be the first segment of an eventual route to Minneapolis / St. Paul. Wisconsin had further obligated $47 million to the construction of two Talgo train sets (with an option for two more), and Talgo had set up a North American headquarters in "pro rail" Wisconsin, now slated for closure. That is the origin of this thread: what will happen to those now-constructed trains?

When Walker won the election (November 2010), the Democratic Governer James Doyle suspended the design and engineering work on the line (decision announced on November 4th), since he felt it likely that any funds spent would have to be reimbursed to the Feds in case the project was, indeed, canceled.

True to his promise, Walker quickly confirmed his intent to US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. The grant was withdrawn in December, and the funds (along with another $400 million from an Ohio project canceled in similar circumstances) were re-distributed to other states, notably California and Washington State. A big chunk also went to Florida, but which had also elected a Republican governor, and he soon canceled his state's project. The bulk of those funds wound up in Illinois, for use on the Chicago - St. Louis line.

Walker now faces a recall election this June.

But all is not lost: the original high speed rail project has been replaced with a much more efficient one, as this Madison, WI, report shows:

http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-replaces-costly-highspeed-rail-plan-with-hig,18473/


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 5, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > When did they decline it?
> ...


The $810 million grant would not have resulted in 110mph service on either the Chicago - Milwaukee or the Milwaukee - Madison routes. The grant was primarily to establish 79mph service between Milwaukee and Madison plus some ancillary improvements to the Chicago line. Speed improvements for 110mph would have required additional funding in the future.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 5, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Not my understanding... it seems from the plans that there were to be significant sections at 110 mph, and that they were funded within the $810 million envelope. That is not to say that trains were at 110 mph within 50 yards of CHI Union Station: it looks like the 110 mph sections were located between a point a few miles north of Glenview, and Milwaukee Airport (roughly), and for a similar length on the Milwaukee - Madison line. The funding also covered the renovation of the Milwaukee station, subsequently half paid for with other federal money, and half with state money.


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 5, 2012)

I'm going off of memory, but other than a few minor things (like platform lengthening at MKA) that did not impact the speed, the $810 million was not for any work south/east of MKE. I'm almost 100% certain that there was not going to be any higher-than-79 running CHI-MKE with that money.

MKE-MSN, not sure. I think it's possible there could have been some 110 in those funds.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 5, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> I'm going off of memory, but other than a few minor things (like platform lengthening at MKA) that did not impact the speed, the $810 million was not for any work south/east of MKE. I'm almost 100% certain that there was not going to be any higher-than-79 running CHI-MKE with that money.
> 
> MKE-MSN, not sure. I think it's possible there could have been some 110 in those funds.




Yes, that's correct, my bad. I'm looking at a study for the whole corridor, not the work that was associated with the funding. I'll poke around and see what I can find on MKE - Madison.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 5, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going off of memory, but other than a few minor things (like platform lengthening at MKA) that did not impact the speed, the $810 million was not for any work south/east of MKE. I'm almost 100% certain that there was not going to be any higher-than-79 running CHI-MKE with that money.
> ...


The initial operation of MKE-Madison would have been at 79mph maximum. Upon the completion of PTC (estimated for 2016), the speed would have been increased to 110mph maximum. The work on the Chicago segment was to provide the "building blocks" for future 110mph operation, would would not have permitted 110 without additional work.

So, yes, you are correct. The Madison service would have been at 110mph after an initial period at 79.

HSIPR Application


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 5, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


OK, I have the grant request, and the fed grant, in front of me. The $810 million did include 110 mph running between Milwaukee and Madison, but not between Chicago and Milwaukee.

The confusion may come from this: initial running (from 2013, so next year) would have been at 79 mph until PTC could be installed and tested. PTC testing was to happen in 2015, for implimentation in 2016. But all of the work was funded in the $810 million grant. Travel time would have been as low as 1'5" between Milwaukee and Madison, down from 1'23" in the initial (79 mph) service.


----------



## PacificStarlight (Apr 6, 2012)

jis said:


> 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?


I brought up that point a few months ago on a different thread. I think it would be great.


----------



## RampWidget (Apr 7, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > Blue Marble Travel said:
> ...


This reply may be a bit off topic, but your mention of jointed rail reminded me of something. Staggered rail joints in connection with certain other conditions can contribute to harmonic rocking (aka harmonic roll) in high center of gravity freight cars and lead to derailments. That's one reason to try to keep them (joints) opposite one another. I'm sure the Talgos' independent suspension makes a big difference over turnouts & crossings, at any rate.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 8, 2012)

RampWidget said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > Trogdor said:
> ...



Huh, that's interesting. Now that you say it, it's a phenomenon I think I have witnessed on badly maintained, freight-only, track.

Do you happen to know if it is a phenomenon that is accentuated by any particular speed? I suppose I could try to Google that.... I haven't been on the Vancouver train in years, but way back when, I remember thinking that it was almost boat-like on the Canadian side of the border. I have no idea whether the rail joints are (were?) staggered or opposite on that stretch.

This wouldn't be as much of an issue in Europe, where high-center-of-gravity anything doesn't come into play much.


----------



## jis (Apr 8, 2012)

Staggered jointed rail seems to be mostly an American practice. I don't recall having come across them anywhere outside the Western Hemisphere.


----------



## CHamilton (Apr 17, 2012)

[Wisconsin] kills maintenance contract with Talgo



> State officials have canceled a $116 million maintenance contract with a Spanish-owned train manufacturer, escalating a political and legal dispute over two brand-new trains that already have cost the state $71.8 million.
> 
> In a letter terminating the contract, a state lawyer also claimed that the costs of testing the trains are rising and that federal officials have found the trains don't meet standards for accessibility to the disabled.
> 
> A spokeswoman for the manufacturer, Talgo Inc., denied the allegations and warned the cancellation could lead to legal action.


----------



## Blackwolf (Apr 17, 2012)

The mess only gets worse. Is it wrong for me to root for Talgo on this upcoming legal battle? And I _VERY highly doubt_ the two train sets would not meet ADA requirements, considering the amount of work that goes into building something as complex as a Talgo rail car. Sounds like nothing but a Red Herring for a Wisconsin slime ball- Er, lawyer to cite accessibility for the reason to cancel the contract.

The terrible fact is it's the citizens of Wisconsin who will be paying for the damages when Talgo wins the court case, then counter-sues for millions more.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 17, 2012)

So they cook the number to make the Talgo train operatoral cost look bad. Now there adding ADA on to it.

Wow there try hard to kill it, however there only delaying it.

Sad how trains are so hated in today world.

Sitting back, eating popcorn, LMAO at Wisconsin.


----------



## WICT106 (Apr 17, 2012)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> So they cook the number to make the Talgo train operatoral cost look bad. Now there adding ADA on to it.
> 
> Wow there try hard to kill it, however there only delaying it.
> 
> ...


Don't laugh too hard -- because folks from this end of the political spectrum will be coming for your trains next. In WI, they managed to kill a service extension "in the cradle," so to speak. The next step will be to terminate the existing service. Note that we in WI are still having to deal with folks who think of this as a MSN - MKE train, and not an extension of existing service. :angry2: :angry2: :angry2:


----------



## Steve4031 (Apr 17, 2012)

I am so disgusted with this. Wisconsin and its citizens (supports of HSR excluded) deserve the worse for allowing this to happen. I sincerely hope that the starting line ups of the Packer's offense and defense experience career ending injuries. Cheese head nation deserves whatever it gets.


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 17, 2012)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> So they cook the number to make the Talgo train operatoral cost look bad.


What numbers did they "cook" to make the Talgos look expensive?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 17, 2012)

Something cooking in Wisconsin.

From a story by The Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel

"The Wisconsin State Department of Transportation estimated that using the Amtrak equipment would be $10 million a year cheaper than using new state-owned trains. Talgo says the state would save $12 million a year by using its equipment." <_<

Pick the numbers you want to prove your case.

"Never let the facts get in your way."


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 17, 2012)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Something cooking in Wisconsin.
> 
> From a story by The Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel
> 
> ...


If Talgo says the state would save $12 million/year, I'd like them to provide the numbers to back it up.

The $10 million figure from WisDOT is simply the difference between the Talgo contracted maintenance price and what the state is paying Amtrak to use existing equipment.

If Talgo says that the state's numbers are wrong, then they should provide the details to prove it.


----------



## Mackensen (Apr 17, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> [Wisconsin] kills maintenance contract with Talgo
> 
> 
> 
> > In a letter terminating the contract, a state lawyer also claimed that the costs of testing the trains are rising and that federal officials have found the trains don't meet standards for accessibility to the disabled.


If the Talgos really aren't ADA compliant then that's a huge screw-up on the part of either Talgo, Wisconsin DOT (under the previous administration), or both. Anyone have more information on this?


----------



## jis (Apr 17, 2012)

Maybe FEC will negotiate an attractive lease agreement with Talgo to use in the inaugural of the FEC passenger service?


----------



## Steve4031 (Apr 17, 2012)

Mackensen said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> > [Wisconsin] kills maintenance contract with Talgo
> ...



It is everybody's mistake. Talgo, if they want to do business in the US should know and adhere to the ADA standards. It is Wisconsin's fault for not ensuring that the equipment is ADA compliant. And if the ADA guidelines are that confusing, then it is the fault of the people who wrote that too. I think people are just being stupid in trying to play CYA in this situation.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 17, 2012)

"YOU provide the numbers. No, YOU provide the numbers. YOU first. No, YOU."

There are a lot of numbers out there, and even on the first 5 pages of this thread. They point in different directions based on how you assume the maintenance costs of the existing (and aging) Amtrak equipment will evolve, how you think riders would have reacted to the new equipment... and especially, how you voted in the last election. And they don't really matter, because the Talgos won't run in WI for reasons that have nothing to do with numbers, Talgos, or anything other than the politics surrounding their demise.

Here is betting that the ADA issue (which doesn't seem to exist in the Pacific Northwest) is not really an issue. If you and I have a deal, and I want to go back on the deal, I look for a reason to blame you, to show the outside world that, even though I am the one who appears to be backing out, it is really your fault. Even if I don't find one, I figure that just threatening you with a court process will be enough for you to cut me some slack. It's just legal blackmail. "Reduce my bill by 20%, and I'll pay you quickly, and not make a fuss. You're a foreign company, up against a state defending its taxpayers... you're not going to cut a sympathetic figure in court, especially since I'll arrange to have the judge be one that I appointed..."

I hope that Talgo stands firm and fights to get paid its due. It seems to have done everything it said it would, and should get paid for that. The anglo-saxon in me says that justice should be done. Talgo has nothing to do with Wisconsin politics, and should not be the victim of same. It is an upstanding, successful, and skillful company, employing innovative technology around the world.

Is that technology appropriate to the tangent track of Wisconsin? Probably not. Whose fault is that? Doyle's? Probably. He went for the new plant, and the attendant jobs, and didn't think much about the appropriateness of the trains.

Would the 4 sets have nonetheless worked in a Madison - Milwaukee - Chicago corridor? Yes, just fine, and the corridor would have been funded by the rest of us. Now it won't happen. Wisconsin is on the hook for expensive toys it can't use, has lost a game-changing improvement to its transportation system, and all those jobs. Whose fault is that? Walker's? Probably.

The rest is just money, and the Republicans fighting to hold on to WI in the face of a truly stupid series of mistakes, the logical consequence of a slavish adherence to dogma. Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Truth will have nothing to do with the coming debate. It will just be a bunch of people shouting past each other, trying to get what they want, whether or not they deserve it. I join others in this post (Steve4031) in feeling a certain level of disgust.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2012)

The CHI-MLW corridor do not need Talgos. They need the bilevels that the Illinois corridor trains will be using. The Talgos were a bad decission for this corridor in the first place. They work great in the Pacific Northwest but not in Chi-MLW corridor.


----------



## afigg (Apr 17, 2012)

Steve4031 said:


> Mackensen said:
> 
> 
> > If the Talgos really aren't ADA compliant then that's a huge screw-up on the part of either Talgo, Wisconsin DOT (under the previous administration), or both. Anyone have more information on this?
> ...


Baloney. The Talgos are ADA compliant to the extent that the ADA compliance is specified. There is always some wiggle room in interpreting EXACTLY what is needed to be ADA compliant. This smacks of the state legal department having been tasked with finding an excuse to either get out of the contract or find something to use as leverage to lower the penalty that WI may have to pay for breaking the agreement. The charges and counter-charges are just the opening salvos of what is likely to be a drawn out legal process.

If I were the Talgo Corporation management, I would not blame them if they decided to give up on the US market because of this mess. They set up an assembly plant which built only 4 trainsets when they had to be planning on a bunch of follow-on orders. Very likely lost money on the deal.


----------



## jis (Apr 17, 2012)

Yeah. Just imagine. Talgo produced two ADA compliant sets for Cascades and then went out of its way at additional expense to produce two special ADA non-compliant sets for WI. This smacks of political chicanery more than anything else.

BTW, I'd be very surprised if Talgo and FEC are not talking already.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 17, 2012)

afigg said:


> If I were the Talgo Corporation management, I would not blame them if they decided to give up on the US market because of this mess. They set up an assembly plant which built only 4 trainsets when they had to be planning on a bunch of follow-on orders. Very likely lost money on the deal.


Absolutely.

I wouldn't blame any passenger rail manufacturer from giving up on the hopelessly schizophrenic American passenger rail market.

It's becoming more and more clear by the day that the adults among us are no longer in charge of the budget.

These days it's all about scoring points with your base and proving your ideological purity.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 17, 2012)

Guest said:


> The CHI-MLW corridor do not need Talgos. They need the bilevels that the Illinois corridor trains will be using. The Talgos were a bad decission for this corridor in the first place. They work great in the Pacific Northwest but not in Chi-MLW corridor.




Of course they were, Guest Guest. There aren't many of us on this thread who think that Talgo technology was ideally suited to straight track in the upper midwest.

But they are built, and paid for, and about to start life on a siding, unless you happen to have a vaporizer gun. And the bilevels aren't built, or paid for, and now what?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 17, 2012)

ADA requirements have changed. As of 1 Feb any new project need to meet the new requirements. It's not about the equipment, but how the equipment and platforms match up. It seem the door and platform much be at the same height now. Talgo equipment use a lift system to get wheelchairs on board. So it now the platforms that need to be modified in Wisconsin to meet ADA requirement. That the Wisconsin blames Talgo for not building there equipment with the door edges below the rail head, is all about the blame game.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 17, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> "YOU provide the numbers. No, YOU provide the numbers. YOU first. No, YOU."
> 
> There are a lot of numbers out there, and even on the first 5 pages of this thread. They point in different directions based on how you assume the maintenance costs of the existing (and aging) Amtrak equipment will evolve, how you think riders would have reacted to the new equipment... and especially, how you voted in the last election. And they don't really matter, because the Talgos won't run in WI for reasons that have nothing to do with numbers, Talgos, or anything other than the politics surrounding their demise.
> 
> ...


Well said. I agree, but now that we see the problem, how do we fix it?


----------



## Eric S (Apr 17, 2012)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> ADA requirements have changed. As of 1 Feb any new project need to meet the new requirements. It's not about the equipment, but how the equipment and platforms match up. It seem the door and platform much be at the same height now. Talgo equipment use a lift system to get wheelchairs on board. So it now the platforms that need to be modified in Wisconsin to meet ADA requirement. That the Wisconsin blames Talgo for not building there equipment with the door edges below the rail head, is all about the blame game.


These recent ADA changes have also been what has held up the redesign and reconstruction of the Milwaukee trainshed/concourse/platform area as well.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Apr 17, 2012)

I didn't think it was a good idea to order Talgos in the first place. Multiple or articulated units have caused much trouble in he US because the government won't field large amounts of them. Wisconsin won't, so the maintainance cost is too high.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 17, 2012)

Talgo three major selling points are:

1) Passive tilt train [faster speeds in curves]

2) The maintance system [availability of the equipment]

3) Multi gauge wheels [Europe issue]

How or why Wisconsin order them is another issue, but they got them now, so are we going to see them run in service or wait for them to be sold to someone else?

I got a refund from the IRS this year. If they are willing to take a loss. I will be right there with my check book in hand.

Edit due to spelling / incorrect word / long day issue.


----------



## MattW (Apr 17, 2012)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> ADA requirements have changed. As of 1 Feb any new project need to meet the new requirements. It's not about the equipment, but how the equipment and platforms match up. It seem the door and platform much be at the same height now. Talgo equipment use a lift system to get wheelchairs on board. So it now the platforms that need to be modified in Wisconsin to meet ADA requirement. That the Wisconsin blames Talgo for not building there equipment with the door edges below the rail head, is all about the blame game.


So so will this have the effect of requiring all high level platforms in all new station construction?


----------



## CHamilton (Apr 17, 2012)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> I got a refund from the IRS this year. If they are willing to take a los, I will be right there with my check book in hand.


That's an idea! Maybe AU should put together a Kickstarter project to buy them. They just raised $4 million to build a fancy watch, so why not a couple of Talgos? Hey, Anderson, didn't you have a thread a while back on buying private varnish?


----------



## Jim Prufrock (Apr 17, 2012)

I'm kind of wondering why, if these are such a wonderful design and advanced rail system, couldn't Wisconsin sell them to someone else? Even at a steep discount, the state could recover debt, Talgos would get paid, and we'd all be relieved.

Or aren't there any other states that want these? Could that be a sign that something besides us wanting rail service and pretty trains, is terribly wrong here.

Why aren't there other buyers lined up for a great discount deal?


----------



## Paulus Magnus (Apr 18, 2012)

Jim Prufrock said:


> I'm kind of wondering why, if these are such a wonderful design and advanced rail system, couldn't Wisconsin sell them to someone else? Even at a steep discount, the state could recover debt, Talgos would get paid, and we'd all be relieved.
> 
> Or aren't there any other states that want these? Could that be a sign that something besides us wanting rail service and pretty trains, is terribly wrong here.
> 
> Why aren't there other buyers lined up for a great discount deal?


It wouldn't really mesh well with most state's existing fleets. Cascades, where they already use it, is the most likely purchaser. Alternatively, Amtrak may purchase to cheaply resurrect the Desert Wind (but by all indications, they have no interest in enhancing long distance travel) or California could, in theory, use them for the planned Coast Daylight service instead of a normal Surfliner consist. All Aboard Florida is the only other potential purchaser, but the tilting capabilities bring no benefit to them and I suspect they'll buy conventional equipment instead.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 18, 2012)

Jim Prufrock said:


> I'm kind of wondering why, if these are such a wonderful design and advanced rail system, couldn't Wisconsin sell them to someone else? Even at a steep discount, the state could recover debt, Talgos would get paid, and we'd all be relieved.
> 
> Or aren't there any other states that want these? Could that be a sign that something besides us wanting rail service and pretty trains, is terribly wrong here.
> 
> Why aren't there other buyers lined up for a great discount deal?


This thread has been going on so long that it is starting to cycle through new readers. The first point to make is that, as far as we know, WI isn't offering any discount deal to anyone. And though there are probably no takers at full price, that doesn't make the trains bad.

Here is an updated version of my comment on this point, from back on page 2:

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

(1) Curvy track. The pendular cars "lean into" the curves, increasing passenger comfort and potentially allowing for higher speeds, though FRA rules make no allowance for this in the US. In Spain, where the Talgos were born, conventional lines will have three speed limits. For instance: Freight, 80 kph. Passenger, 100 kph. Talgo, 120 kph.

(2) "Bad" track. Independent wheel suspension makes the trains less subject to a rough ride at high speed. Note that this effect apparently vanishes at low speed on jointed rail, and may even be negative.

(3) Routes where Amtrak can gain a benefit from a lightweight train that inflicts minimal damage on the track, and so lessens maintenance costs at equivalent speeds. So, routes where Amtrak owns its own track, or routes 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. But the high platforms of the NEC are not compatible with the tiny profile Talgo cars. The Adirondack is another, but you still have Penn Station, Croton Harmon, maybe others. So are the Carolinian, the Pennsylvanian, probably even the Lynchburger. But they all run up against those high NEC platforms. A train headed south from DC in the morning, back in the evening? That would make some sense (especially on the Crescent route), but I don't know if there is space for a "Talgo House" in DC, and you lose the "track damage" benefit.

 

Others have mentioned the California coast ("Coast Daylight"), and, yes, that would seem to make sense, too. Again, Amtrak gets no benefit from the light weight / low track damage angle. But 2 out of 3 ain't bad. The only other Amtrak-owned corridor is Michigan's, but the Talgos aren't on Michigan's radar. Maybe they will be, at the right price, but the state isn't rolling in dough at the moment.

In any event, flat "I" states (and southern WI might as well be one) are not the best place for these trains, and it was always a mistake to buy them for WI. Doyle's administration seems to have done so because Talgo offered to build its North American plant there, so there were a lot of good jobs on the line, too: maybe worth buying a too-fancy train, whose bells and whistles could not be exploited in the local context? Regardless, WI's voters repudiated all that, so WI wound up with the albatross (inappropriate trains) and not the benefit (the plant is shutting down, and the workers are all being fired). 

The only WI application I can imagine for the Talgos now would be on a daylight schedule to Minneapolis (track northwest of Milwaukee has some curves), were Minnesota to come on board.

As other posters have pointed out, wherever you put them, some specialized maintenance is required, usually provided by Talgo itself. This maintenance could have been performed in the factory where the trains were built, but any new purchaser (other than the Pac NW, which already has what it needs) would need to build a facility, at significant cost.

 

So, the only likely buyers are the Pac NW states (but which just bought two, and whose host railroads are hostile to additional trains), or some other place meeting the above criteria, and in the market for those two and several more. Two trains sets aren't worth much as a stand-alone purchase.

For all that, the chances are good that what you suggest is exactly what will happen. Some state with a pro-rail governor and legislature will offer WI $30 million for the $74 million sets, leaving the headroom needed to put $20 million into a maintenance facility. Everyone wins, except WI, but which is out "only" half of what it has spent. 

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


----------



## Eric S (Apr 18, 2012)

MattW said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > ADA requirements have changed. As of 1 Feb any new project need to meet the new requirements. It's not about the equipment, but how the equipment and platforms match up. It seem the door and platform much be at the same height now. Talgo equipment use a lift system to get wheelchairs on board. So it now the platforms that need to be modified in Wisconsin to meet ADA requirement. That the Wisconsin blames Talgo for not building there equipment with the door edges below the rail head, is all about the blame game.
> ...


Here is how Ron Adams, WisDOT Railroads & Harbors Section Chief explained the new ADA platform rules (or how WisDOT interprets them at this point):

In areas where required by freight traffic, platforms must be 8" ATR (Above the Top of the Rail). Where freight traffic does not interfere, platforms must be level with the lowest-profile passenger equipment operating on that line. In single-level-only territory, this means 48" ATR (high-level platforms). Elsewhere, this means 15" ATR (level with Superliner lower levels).

As far as Milwaukee, this looks to mean that the side platform directly attached to the station building will need to be 15" ATR, as that track is not generally used for freight traffic (at least according to WisDOT and FRA), and the two island platforms will need to be 8" ATR.


----------



## WICT106 (Apr 18, 2012)

The tilting aspect of the Talgos would have been beneficial along the Mississippi River, as it would have allowed for higher average speeds along this rather curve-laden portion of line. The Emipre Builder seldom gets beyond 60 mph along this section of the route. Other posters are correct regarding the portion in Wisconsin, as those sections are rather straight.


----------



## jis (Apr 18, 2012)

Eric S said:


> In areas where required by freight traffic, platforms must be 8" ATR (Above the Top of the Rail). Where freight traffic does not interfere, platforms must be level with the lowest-profile passenger equipment operating on that line. In single-level-only territory, this means 48" ATR (high-level platforms). Elsewhere, this means 15" ATR (level with Superliner lower levels).
> 
> As far as Milwaukee, this looks to mean that the side platform directly attached to the station building will need to be 15" ATR, as that track is not generally used for freight traffic (at least according to WisDOT and FRA), and the two island platforms will need to be 8" ATR.


Indeed, and while the effective date was this year, the fact that these rules were coming was well known for a while. Heck this was all being argued back in 2009. What surprises me is that WisDOT had not planned and budgeted for this expenditure.

It is distressing to see passenger rail planners cutting corners on simple things like reasonable platform heights.

New stations built in NJ on trackage shared with regular freight operations have had 48" platform with gauntlet tracks built years back. The new Pennsauken station on the Atlantic City Line is building in additional crossovers to move freight away from the track that will have the 48" platform. These are just the cost of doing business and should be accounted for. OTOH, it is railfans, among others, who were responsible for many of the M&E stations not getting 48" platforms in the interest of maintaining the nice 19th century looks of the stations. Sigh.... Now the next time these stations are refurbished they will have to be upgraded to 48" platforms at great additional cost.

OTOH, NJT pulled an interesting stunt about the Tier III (AFAIR) diesel regulations which went into effect while the PL42s were being delivered. They made sure they avoided that requirement by assembling and starting each engine once before the deadline thus establishing that basic manufacturing had been completed before the deadline. It was months later that the final unit was actually delivered. Games that people play....


----------



## me_little_me (Apr 18, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> 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. But the high platforms of the NEC are not compatible with the tiny profile Talgo cars. The Adirondack is another, but you still have Penn Station, Croton Harmon, maybe others. So are the Carolinian, the Pennsylvanian, probably even the Lynchburger. But they all run up against those high NEC platforms. A train headed south from DC in the morning, back in the evening? That would make some sense (especially on the Crescent route), but I don't know if there is space for a "Talgo House" in DC, and you lose the "track damage" benefit.


The Piedmonts? Then possibly NC will add the long awaited connection to Asheville they promised years ago and add the Wilmington connection they "investigated".


----------



## Eric S (Apr 18, 2012)

jis said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > In areas where required by freight traffic, platforms must be 8" ATR (Above the Top of the Rail). Where freight traffic does not interfere, platforms must be level with the lowest-profile passenger equipment operating on that line. In single-level-only territory, this means 48" ATR (high-level platforms). Elsewhere, this means 15" ATR (level with Superliner lower levels).
> ...


I was wondering the same thing, how WisDOT was caught surprised by this. At a recent WisARP meeting, it was mentioned that the MKE trainshed/platform renovation has been delayed because WisDOT has had to redesign things to accommodate the new platform rules. But, like you mentioned, I thought that the general idea of "level boarding where possible" (depending on freight traffice, different equipment types, etc) was known some time ago.


----------



## Midwest Rich (Apr 18, 2012)

The Doyle administration contracted for the Talgo sets back in 2008-09 in anticipation of extending Hiawatha service to Madison, not to service only CHI-MILW. The route between Milwaukee and Madison had been identified and planned since the mid-1990s in the Tommy Thompson administration, with the EA/FONSI finalized in 2003. The Talgos were selected because of the desire to get maximum speeds through the curves on the CP/Soo Line track in west Milwaukee, Wauwatosa, Elm Grove, Brookfield, and Oconomowoc. Although the eastern end of the Milwaukee-Madison route is extremely curvy, the remainder is fairly straight, with curves in Watertown (near a stop) and Sun Prairie. While the Talgo buy isn't cheap, there are some definite curve/timetable issues west of Milwaukee that the Talgo technology would mitigate, especially when compared to Horizon equipment. Speculated double-deck equipment would perform even worse on those curves. As for the Talgo maintenance costs versus Amtrak lease rates, the deal pencils much better when one is doing an analysis for six Hiawatha round-trips to Madison daily. When one analyzes only for Hiawatha to Milwaukee, the deal can be made to look bad. Whatever one thinks about the appropriateness of Talgo technology, keep in mind that the Walker people are trying to kill any future possibility of service to Madison by any means possible. Do not believe the propaganda that they issue -- they're not truthful. As for their reasons, Walker & Company are trying their damnedest to get rid of equipment that would work well between Milwaukee and Madison, not because of the financial issues, but simply because they hate Madison.


----------



## PaulM (Apr 19, 2012)

Midwest Rich said:


> As for their reasons, Walker & Company are trying their damnedest to get rid of equipment that would work well between Milwaukee and Madison, not because of the financial issues, but simply because they hate Madison.


Through the whole Wisconsin fiasco, this is the first explanation I've heard that rings true. It obvious that the financial issue was a hoax. There isn't any question in my mind that the Madison service would be one of the most successful train start ups ever. After all, cheese head aren't that different culturally from Illinoisans. And all of the Illinois trains are very successful, some of which have only a small fraction of the population along the line, compared to Madison - Milwaukee.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 19, 2012)

Midwest Rich said:


> The Doyle administration contracted for the Talgo sets back in 2008-09 in anticipation of extending Hiawatha service to Madison, not to service only CHI-MILW. The route between Milwaukee and Madison had been identified and planned since the mid-1990s in the Tommy Thompson administration, with the EA/FONSI finalized in 2003. The Talgos were selected because of the desire to get maximum speeds through the curves on the CP/Soo Line track in west Milwaukee, Wauwatosa, Elm Grove, Brookfield, and Oconomowoc. Although the eastern end of the Milwaukee-Madison route is extremely curvy, the remainder is fairly straight, with curves in Watertown (near a stop) and Sun Prairie. While the Talgo buy isn't cheap, there are some definite curve/timetable issues west of Milwaukee that the Talgo technology would mitigate, especially when compared to Horizon equipment. Speculated double-deck equipment would perform even worse on those curves. As for the Talgo maintenance costs versus Amtrak lease rates, the deal pencils much better when one is doing an analysis for six Hiawatha round-trips to Madison daily. When one analyzes only for Hiawatha to Milwaukee, the deal can be made to look bad. Whatever one thinks about the appropriateness of Talgo technology, keep in mind that the Walker people are trying to kill any future possibility of service to Madison by any means possible. Do not believe the propaganda that they issue -- they're not truthful. As for their reasons, Walker & Company are trying their damnedest to get rid of equipment that would work well between Milwaukee and Madison, not because of the financial issues, but simply because they hate Madison.


Thanks. Interesting to hear that there are actually some curves there. It is not track that I (at least) have any familiarity with.

But, a question: apart from passenger comfort, how would Talgos help in curves in a US context? They do two things: improve passenger comfort (the tilt lessens centrifugal force), and substantially lessen track damage.

In Europe, where the operator owns the track, the track damage angle is an important one. And in Spain, where the regulatory authority is used to them after 50 years, they are allowed to trade these benefits against higher speeds. That is: go through the curves faster, yielding comfort equivalent to other equipment at a lower speed (track damage, a geometrical progression with weight and speed, is still lower), but shorter trip times.

In the US, all the track damage benefits accrue to the operating railroad, no? And the FRA wouldn't let them go an any faster than whatever the regulatory line speed was determined to be... So you would just have an increase in passenger comfort left. My experience with US passenger trains is that that is not a high-priority objective.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 19, 2012)

PaulM said:


> Midwest Rich said:
> 
> 
> > As for their reasons, Walker & Company are trying their damnedest to get rid of equipment that would work well between Milwaukee and Madison, not because of the financial issues, but simply because they hate Madison.
> ...


There were other reasons to believe in the start-up, and that is presumably why the Feds gave WI the money, in the face of stiff competition.

- Connectivity (to Chicago, with ongoing connections across the midwest and the nation)

- Urban cores at both ends (whether one takes the eastern end to be CHI or Milwaukee) with strong public transit networks (relatively speaking): important for passenger distribution.

- State capital, which always produces higher ridership figures than an equivalent city of the same size (so do university towns, and Madison is both)

- Meaningful possibility of a western extension (to Minneapolis)

I don't know that many people think Walker's decision was based on cold economic analysis. By the time he was elected, the decision to pursue the project would have been expense-neutral for WI at worst (though perhaps not for the nation). Lots of Fed money, construction jobs, economic development benefits... all bringing increased tax revenue, would have offset operating losses for the next 20 years (time lines are tough beyond that). And it wasn't sure that there would even be any operating losses: depended on who you believed. Plus, WI would have wound up with a piece of infrastructure that would have significantly improved the lives of its citizens, saved not a few Wisconsin lives / avoided permanent maimings, and lessened carbon-based environmental damage.

In the days following the election, many, many people, including many Walker supporters / Republican business leaders (who also stood to benefit — you would not have had to show a party registration to get a construction contract or to ride the train), made these points, more or less quietly, to the incoming administration. Walker stood firm, on the avowed grounds that he had made a campaign promise, and was not about to start his new administration by going back on it. But I doubt that that was the whole story.

So, why did he cancel the deal? Because he "hates Madison?" Maybe, if that is a code word. Perhaps because the type of transformation that the train would have brought, mostly of benefit to people unlikely to vote his way, is not one that he can approve of. It densifies and supports the economic vitality of urban cores, channels passenger flows into a heavily-used corridor, helps mobility (and thus opportunity) for the poor and for young people... who are then empowered to go out and vote in an informed manner. Note that Walker's other great crusade was against... public education.

Republican governance is good for an extremely wealthy top fringe of the population willing to isolate itself from the rest of us, and for defenders of individual liberty who are willing to sacrifice economic and physical well-being (including their own) to hold on to that liberty. These two populations represent, say, 2% + 25% of the total. And they rationally vote for the Walkers of the world: 1%ers who promise to the 25% that they will "stay out of their lives," and keep other people out.

But you have to get to 50% (well, 48% if you play your cards right ;-) to win elections. And the remaining 23% have to come from people too dumb to understand what is being done to them. Neither education, nor mobility and opportunity shared with the poor, can be on your wish list if your survival depends on keeping 23% of the population dumb as posts....


----------



## Midwest Rich (Apr 19, 2012)

So, why did he cancel the deal? Because he "hates Madison?" Maybe, if that is a code word. Perhaps because the type of transformation that the train would have brought, mostly of benefit to people unlikely to vote his way, is not one that he can approve of. It densifies and supports the economic vitality of urban cores, channels passenger flows into a heavily-used corridor, helps mobility (and thus opportunity) for the poor and for young people... who are then empowered to go out and vote in an informed manner. Note that Walker's other great crusade was against... public education.

Aside from fulfilling a campaign promise intended to satisfy Walker's base in the Milwaukee suburbs (especially in Waukesha County, Tea Party central), the operative phrase I've heard second-hand from Walker administration folks is: "Madison has sucked enough from the government teat." The merits of train service to Madison has substantively nothing to do with the opposition; the opposition is entirely based on longstanding resentment of Madison centered in Waukesha County (and fueled by conservative talk radio nonsense, mostly via Charlie Sykes). FYI, the Talgo contract preceded the ARRA grant process (that awarded $810 million for Milwaukee-Madison service) by a whole year. WisDOT intended to buy the Talgos regardless of the grant, with initial funding sourced from $100 million in bonding authorized in 2008 (which is still in effect).


----------



## jis (Apr 19, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> But, a question: apart from passenger comfort, how would Talgos help in curves in a US context? They do two things: improve passenger comfort (the tilt lessens centrifugal force), and substantially lessen track damage.


That is factually incorrect. The wheel rail interface forces are not changed at all by the body tilting. What the body tilting does is reduce the perceived lateral force in the carriage. That is why it is used. In any case the heaviest part of the train, if it is powered by a locomotive, itself does not usually tilt.

I am sure George, who is a track engineer can explain the dynamics of all this much better than I



> In the US, all the track damage benefits accrue to the operating railroad, no? And the FRA wouldn't let them go an any faster than whatever the regulatory line speed was determined to be... So you would just have an increase in passenger comfort left. My experience with US passenger trains is that that is not a high-priority objective.


That is also factually incorrect. Maximum speed allowed on curves is determined by a few things:

(i) The track class

(ii) The degree of the curve

(iii) The amount of superelevation underbalance allowed for a particular equipment

(iv) The height of the center of gravity of the equipment in question from top of rail.

(v) Axle load of the train.

You basically plug these things into a standard formula and you get the max allowed speed.

FRA takes into consideration passenger comfort through specification of maximum lateral force allowed. This is the factor that can be controlled through tilting. Consequently tilting trains are allowed to operate with higher underbalance thus allowing them higher speeds on curves than equivalent non-tilting trains.

Contrary to your contention, at present Cascade Talgos and Acelas are allowed anywhere upto 5 to 15mph faster speeds on curves compared to non-tilting equipment.

AFAIU The difference between Europe and USA is that the maximum superelevation allowed in the US is much less than in Europe because Europe simply does not have 20 feet tall stuff running around. Naturally such equipment would be more prone to toppling over than the sedate 14 to 15 feet tall stuff that is the max in Europe in general circulation. It is also true that FRA does not allow as much underbalance as Europeans do, which reduces the incremental additional max speed that tilting equipment can get in the US when compared to Europe.

Again, I yield to George to correct me if I am wrong in any of this, but in general this is the shape of things.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 19, 2012)

jis said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > But, a question: apart from passenger comfort, how would Talgos help in curves in a US context? They do two things: improve passenger comfort (the tilt lessens centrifugal force), and substantially lessen track damage.
> ...


I think that BMT's original claim with respect to lessened track damage are based on the lighter per-axle weight of the Talgos, not the tilt action.


----------



## jis (Apr 19, 2012)

Ryan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Blue Marble Travel said:
> ...


That is certainly true. But the damage would be less irrespective of whether it tilted or not. And whether higher speeds are allowed on curves for tilting trains or not has little to do with track damage either, except of course for the fact that higher speeds in general increase track damage, tilt or not. And yes, as I alluded to weight is a factor in track damage.


----------



## Mackensen (Apr 19, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> Jim Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > I'm kind of wondering why, if these are such a wonderful design and advanced rail system, couldn't Wisconsin sell them to someone else? Even at a steep discount, the state could recover debt, Talgos would get paid, and we'd all be relieved.
> ...


AFAIK Michigan intends to get in on the bilevel order with the rest of the Midwest; I can't see anyone there being interested in a pair of one-off trainsets which can't interoperate with the rest of the Chicago equipment and which have fixed capacity. I recall working out once that it takes at least four trainsets to serve the three Wolverine round-trips per day. Further, the Michigan Line is relatively straight and flat throughout. Michigan's main focus right now is getting the rest of the ex-Michigan Central wrested away from Norfolk Southern and its "maintenance standards." We have no time for Wisconsin's toy trains.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 19, 2012)

jis said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > But, a question: apart from passenger comfort, how would Talgos help in curves in a US context? They do two things: improve passenger comfort (the tilt lessens centrifugal force), and substantially lessen track damage.
> ...




I respectfully stand by the statement.

It is the train weight, not the tilting, that lessens the track damage. Forgive me if I was unclear.

For general interest:

http://www.talgoamer...ew.aspx?id=over


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 19, 2012)

jis said:


> > In the US, all the track damage benefits accrue to the operating railroad, no? And the FRA wouldn't let them go an any faster than whatever the regulatory line speed was determined to be... So you would just have an increase in passenger comfort left. My experience with US passenger trains is that that is not a high-priority objective.
> 
> 
> That is also factually incorrect.


How can a question be factually incorrect? Am I missing something?


----------



## jis (Apr 19, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > > In the US, all the track damage benefits accrue to the operating railroad, no? And the FRA wouldn't let them go an any faster than whatever the regulatory line speed was determined to be... So you would just have an increase in passenger comfort left. My experience with US passenger trains is that that is not a high-priority objective.
> ...


Just to make it clear what is incorrect is the statement "And the FRA wouldn't let them go an any faster than whatever the regulatory line speed was determined to be", which I interpreted to mean that FRA would not allow a tilt train to go faster than a non-tilt train. If that was not your intent then it is my mistaken interpretation that I was responding to. I came to this conclusion since you claimed that the _only _advantage would be passenger comfort and not an increase in speed (presumably).

Taking the more broad interpretation, it is also a fact that European Rail Regulators would not let a train go faster than what the regulation determines there. So that would seem to be just a statement of the obvious, and no different from the situation in the USA.

So please clarify what you meant to say. Thanks.


----------



## jis (Apr 19, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Blue Marble Travel said:
> ...


Just to be clear, how tilting helps in the US is by allowing higher speeds on curves thus reducing the total running time of the train, just like it does in Europe.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 19, 2012)

jis said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > In the US, all the track damage benefits accrue to the operating railroad, no? And the FRA wouldn't let them go an any faster than whatever the regulatory line speed was determined to be... So you would just have an increase in passenger comfort left. My experience with US passenger trains is that that is not a high-priority objective.
> ...




I'm happy to learn a lot of this stuff (and did not mean to "contend" that Talgos and Acelas were not allowed higher speeds: I hypothesized that they were not).

Indeed, more generally, I asked questions to which you have answers, and I receive the information gratefully. I am especially happy to learn that the FRA is that sophisticated in measuring track stresses — information that is truly new for me, and surprising.

I will permit myself to nuance one of your points. While you are correct that the locomotive is the heaviest vehicle on the train, having one heavy vehicle slam through a curve is better (from a point of view of track stress) than having a whole series of them do so. I am sure that George will confirm this.

Moreover, wouldn't that make my hypothesis correct, after all? (Note question mark)

If the locomotive weight / underbalance / height of center of gravity / whatever determines the train speed, wouldn't the Talgo equipment hauled by a conventional locomotive be restricted to the speed allowed to that locomotive?

George, would love to meet you, and would love your input.

Nicolas


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 19, 2012)

jis said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


I asked a question, which I see (by your reaction) was poorly formulated: "In the US, all the track damage benefits accrue to the operating railroad, no?" The declaratives that followed were dependent on the answer to the question being that yes, indeed, all track damage benefits accrue to the operating railroad. But the "no?" was intended to invite the supplemental information you supplied.

Your input on the underbalance business makes it clear that, in fact, "no." That at least some of the benefits accrue to the operator, Amtrak. If Amtrak is allowed to run the Talgos faster thru curves, yielding higher speeds at similar tolerances for track stress and passenger comfort, then my hypothesis is incorrect. But, again, it was not intended as a statement of fact, only as a hypothesis. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## jis (Apr 19, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> If the locomotive weight / underbalance / height of center of gravity / whatever determines the train speed, wouldn't the Talgo equipment hauled by a conventional locomotive be restricted to the speed allowed to that locomotive?
> 
> George, would love to meet you, and would love your input.
> 
> Nicolas


Hey, Sorry for coming across a bit harsh earlier. I owe you a public apology. Please accept my apology.

Indeed in case of the Talgo operation on the Cascade Corridor it very well may be the case that that is what will determine the max speed on curves. But even that is higher than is allowed for non-tilting trains.

There are two fctors involved here....

A standard passenger train can safely go around a curve much faster than it is cleared for. The lower speed is determined by passenger comfort. A tilting carriage effectively increases the speed at which the train can go around a curve within the lateral accelerations standards used by the FRA to account for passenger comfort. It is OK for the engine that does not tilt to go around the curve at that higher speed since it does not contain any passengers. The Engineer has to hold on to his seat a bit more carefully I suppose. This suggests that the track stress issue or the centrifugal toppling over issuer are not the ruling ones in setting passenger train speeds on curves. The standards are very very conservative a way well within the safety envelope.

Effectively though, what happens in the certification deal is that the entire train set as a whole is certified for operating within specific parameters. Individual pieces of the train may or may not be allowed to operate within the same parameters separately. So while an engine as part of a Talgo set is allowed certain speeds on curves does not imply that they'd be allowed the same speed running light engine. I am not quite sure what the analysis involved is, but apparently the dynamic behavior of the same thing can be quite different when it is part of a consist from when it is separate, and indeed it can be different depending on its location in a consist too.

For example AEM-7s and HHP-8s running light I don't believe are allowed to go at 125mph. Individual Acela cars or power heads are not allowed to operate as part of other consists at anything higher than 80mph I believe, or something even lower.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 19, 2012)

Midwest Rich said:


> FYI, the Talgo contract preceded the ARRA grant process (that awarded $810 million for Milwaukee-Madison service) by a whole year. WisDOT intended to buy the Talgos regardless of the grant, with initial funding sourced from $100 million in bonding authorized in 2008 (which is still in effect).


That's right! I remember that now. Indeed, LaHood cited WI's manifest (prior) commitment to passenger rail as one of the reasons for selecting the WI project.


----------



## WICT106 (Apr 19, 2012)

Midwest Rich said:


> The Doyle administration contracted for the Talgo sets back in 2008-09 in anticipation of extending Hiawatha service to Madison, not to service only CHI-MILW. The route between Milwaukee and Madison had been identified and planned since the mid-1990s in the Tommy Thompson administration, with the EA/FONSI finalized in 2003. The Talgos were selected because of the desire to get maximum speeds through the curves on the CP/Soo Line track in west Milwaukee, Wauwatosa, Elm Grove, Brookfield, and Oconomowoc. Although the eastern end of the Milwaukee-Madison route is extremely curvy, the remainder is fairly straight, with curves in Watertown (near a stop) and Sun Prairie. While the Talgo buy isn't cheap, there are some definite curve/timetable issues west of Milwaukee that the Talgo technology would mitigate, especially when compared to Horizon equipment. Speculated double-deck equipment would perform even worse on those curves. As for the Talgo maintenance costs versus Amtrak lease rates, the deal pencils much better when one is doing an analysis for six Hiawatha round-trips to Madison daily. When one analyzes only for Hiawatha to Milwaukee, the deal can be made to look bad. Whatever one thinks about the appropriateness of Talgo technology, keep in mind that the Walker people are trying to kill any future possibility of service to Madison by any means possible. Do not believe the propaganda that they issue -- they're not truthful. As for their reasons, Walker & Company are trying their damnedest to get rid of equipment that would work well between Milwaukee and Madison, not because of the financial issues, but simply because they hate Madison.



The anti-rail criticism also found considerable roots among those who either have never needed transit (or trains), and those who are unfamiliar with trains. Many folks who voted for Walker fall into that category -- as do members of Walker's staff. It becomes easy to oppose something when a. one sees no need for it in one's personal life, ever, and b. One doesn't know anyone who needs or has needed such a service. Many Walker supporters have never set foot aboard a train, and, as a result, opposed Amtrak spending because they see no need for trains.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Apr 19, 2012)

jis said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > If the locomotive weight / underbalance / height of center of gravity / whatever determines the train speed, wouldn't the Talgo equipment hauled by a conventional locomotive be restricted to the speed allowed to that locomotive?
> ...


Yes, the Spanish say this, too: that the safety envelope is quite different than the passenger comfort envelope. It is one reason that they stopped developing Talgo-style (low center of gravity, not tilting) locomotives.

Still, I have always wondered about the track stress angle, heavy loco slamming around a curve at high speed. Can't be good. But I'm not enough of an engineer to know.

No worries about the prior exchange, but thanks for the kind words.


----------



## Donctor (Apr 19, 2012)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> So, why did he cancel the deal? Because he "hates Madison?" Maybe, if that is a code word. Perhaps because the type of transformation that the train would have brought, mostly of benefit to people unlikely to vote his way, is not one that he can approve of. It densifies and supports the economic vitality of urban cores, channels passenger flows into a heavily-used corridor, helps mobility (and thus opportunity) for the poor and for young people... who are then empowered to go out and vote in an informed manner. Note that Walker's other great crusade was against... public education.


This.


----------



## CHamilton (Jun 1, 2012)

Did the State of Wisconsin Screw Talgo?



> For more than a year, Talgo CEO Antonio Perez has held his tongue as detractors dumped on his company and its trains, until finally he could take no more. Perez cannot believe the State of Wisconsin has chosen to terminate two contracts it signed with Talgo nearly three years ago. His company has put almost three years of work into a project to build and maintain trains in a warehouse in Milwaukee’s 30th Street Corridor, the long-dormant industrial area Gov. Scott Walker has pledged to help revive with a new, $100 million dollar plan. Yet his administration will kill the only viable company now operating there, Talgo.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jun 1, 2012)

Passenger Train Journal 2012-2 • Issue 251 (White River Productions) has a story in it about the TALGO trains.

A minor (but well believed) error sneaked in, but still a good read, if you can find a copy of it.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 1, 2012)

Blue Marble and JIS, I was for the most part offline and not visiting here even when I was in early to mid April. Seems like my presence was requested on a couple of issues:

Superelevation and unbalance, or in Eurospeak, Cant and cant deficiency"

The normal maximum superelevation in the US railroad world is 4 inches or less. However, up to 6 inches is normal in transit systems as they do not have to contend with high center of gravity cars. The normal maximum in much of the rest of the world is usually 150 to 160 mm, which sounds a lot like 6 to 6 1/2 inches.

The normal maximum unbalance is 3 inches, which also in the FRA limit (213.57) except it may be up to 4 inches case by case in (d) under the same 213.57, which describes the steps needed to get this approval. Height of center of gravity of the vehicle is part of the process, although not labeled as such. 213.57(d)(1) and (2) define maximum unloading of the wheel. In much of the world this unbalance may be up to 100 to 110 mm, in other words, 4 to 4 1/2 inches.

As has been said, both the 3 inch and the 4 inch values are well inside the limits of safety. However, once you get above 3 inches the lateral force becomes quite noticible.

However, since freight moving at under the balance speed for the curve severely beats up the low rail (inside rail) the normal railroad practice is to reduce superelevation to the point that it balances or is slightly below that which balances the normal freight train speed on the curve. Therefore, a curve which might be good for say 70 mph if it had 4 inches of superelevation might only be given 2 inches due to the average freight speed, resulting in a lower maximum speed. I am going to be lazy and not figure out an example.

There are a few reasons that the engines pulling the Talgos do not need to tilt: First, as noted, there is no safety issue. Second, the engineer is sitting down and looking down the track, so that lateral force is less of an issue, and he can also see what is coming.

The impact going in and out of a curve is not that big a deal. Railroad curves have spirals, that is, a curve with variable radius decreasing from infinity to the curve radius over a given length. I will skip the details of that for now, also. The sprial spreads the increase in lateral froce of a specific length of track.

more later - maybe


----------



## jis (Jun 2, 2012)

Thanks George.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 2, 2012)

jis said:


> For example AEM-7s and HHP-8s running light I don't believe are allowed to go at 125mph. Individual Acela cars or power heads are not allowed to operate as part of other consists at anything higher than 80mph I believe, or something even lower.


I didn't know that.

However, that may not necessarily be due to dynamics, but could also be due to signaling reasons and how the detection circuits react differently to a single vehicle than a complete consist. I cannot imagine that an Acela power head is at greater risk of derailment because it is running light.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 2, 2012)

I thought that the light engine restrictions were even slower than that.

You've also got to be concerned about breaking when you're running light - you don't have anything behind you to help slow you down.

Edit:

This trainorders thread says that it's 50 MPH on the NEC, and discusses some of the braking issues:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,508406

(it's also over 10 years old, so it may have changed)


----------



## jis (Jun 2, 2012)

Ryan said:


> I thought that the light engine restrictions were even slower than that.
> 
> You've also got to be concerned about breaking when you're running light - you don't have anything behind you to help slow you down.
> 
> ...


Yes, 50mph is probably right. Only someone with an employee TT can confirm such things.

An HHP 8 as well as an Acela Power head probably does need the train to keep it from hunting too much. I have heard that their yaw characteristics are less than ideal.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 2, 2012)

jis said:


> An HHP 8 as well as an Acela Power head probably does need the train to keep it from *hunting* too much.


See, I knew allowing guns on Amtrak was a bad idea. :lol:


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jun 2, 2012)

Hunting so is that what it's called now when amtrak goes off the rails and chases down a car or pedestrian? :lol:


----------



## Acela150 (Jun 3, 2012)

jis said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I thought that the light engine restrictions were even slower than that.
> ...


Everything is 50MPH. AE PC's multiple or single. AEM-7's, HHP's, and so on....

Maintenance units are different speeds. Top is 45 running lite.


----------

